UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

GIFT   OF" 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.  &7o  ftlnl         Class  No. 


J      ^r        /  Cx^Xv*^*O^x^*x^ 


UNDESIGNED  COINCIDENCES 

IN    THE    WRITINGS    BOTH    OF 

THE   OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS,  , 

• 
AN  ARGUMENT  OF  THEIR  VERACITY- 


WITH  AN  APPENDIX, 


CONTAINING  UNDESIGNED  COINCIDENCES  BETWEEN  THE  GOSPELS, 
AND  ACTS,  AND  JOSEPHUS. 


BY     THE 

REV.  J.  J.  BLUNT,  B.  D. 

ff 

MARGARET    PROFESSOR    OF    DIVINITY,    CAMBRIDGE. 


NEW  YORK: 
ROBERT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS, 


No.  285    BROADWAY. 


185". 


0»  THB        « 

'UHIVBRSITY1 


PREFACE. 


THE  present  Volume  is  a  republication,  with  corrections 
and  large  additions,  of  several  short  Works  which  I  printed 
a  few  years  ago  separately;  and  which,  having  passed 
through  more  or  fewer  editions,  have  become  out  of  print : 
I  have  thus  been  furnished  with  an  opportunity  of  revising 
and  consolidating  them.  These  works  were :  "  The  Ve- 
racity of  the  Books  of  Moses  ;"  "  The  Veracity  of  the  His- 
torical Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  j"  and  "  The  Ve- 
racity of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,"  argued  from  undesigned 
coincidences  to  be  found  in  them  when  compared  in  their 
several  parts ;  and  in  the  last  instance,  when  compared 
also  with  the  Writings  of  Josephus.  They  were  all  of 
them  originally  the  substance  of  Sermons  delivered  before 
the  University,  some  in  a  Course  of  Hulsean  Lectures, 
others  on  various  occasions.  And  though  two  of  them, 
the  Veracity  of  the  Books  of  Moses,  and  the  Veracity  of 
the  Gospels  and  Acts,  were  divested  of  the  form  of  Ser- 
mons before  publication  ;  the  third,  The  Veracity  of  the 
Historical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  (which  consti- 
tuted the  Hulseau  Lectures)  still  retained  it.  I  have 
thought  that  by  reducing  this  to  the  same  shape  as  the 
rest,  and  combining  it  with  them,  the  whole  would  present 
a  continued  argument,  or  rather  a  continued  series  of  in- 

1* 


IV  PREFACE. 

dependent  arguments,  for  the  Veracity  of  the  Scriptures, 
of  which  the  effect  would  be  greater  than  that  of  the 
separate  works  could  be,  which  might  be  read  perhaps  out 
of  the  natural  order,  and  which  were  not  altogether  uni- 
form in  their  plan.  But  as  this  test  of  veracity  proved  ap- 
plicable, though  in  a  less  degree,  for  reasons  I  have  as- 
signed elsewhere,  to  the  Prophetical  Scriptures  also,  I  have 
introduced  into  the  present  Volume'  in  its  proper  place,  evi- 
dence of  the  same  kind  which  had  been  long  lying  by  me, 
for  the  Veracity  of  some  of  those  Writings  ;  thus  employ- 
ing one  and  the  same  touchstone  of  truth,  to  verify  suc- 
cessively the  Books  of  Moses,  the  Historical  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  Prophetical,  and  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  in  their  order. 

The  argument,  as  my  readers  will  of  course  be  aware, 
is  an  extension  of  that  of  the  Horce  Paulince,  and  which 
originated,  as  was  generally  supposed,  with  Dr.  Paley. 
But  Dr.  Turton,1  the  present  bishop  of  Ely,  has  rendered 
the  claims  of  Dr.  Paley  to  the  first  conception  of  it  doubt- 
ful, by  producing  a  passage  from  the  conclusion  of  Dr. 
Doddridge's  Introduction  to  his  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on 
the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  to  the  following 
effect. 

"  Whoever  reads  over  St.  Paul's  Epistles  with  atten- 
tion will  discern  such  intrinsic  characters  in  their  genuine- 
ness, and  the  divine  authority  of  the  doctrines  they  con- 

i  In  his  "  Natural  Theology  considered  with  reference  to  Lord  Brougham'* 
Discourse,"  &c.  p.  23. 


PREFACE.  V 

tain,  as  will  perhaps  produce  in  him  a  stronger  conviction 
than  all  the  external  evidence  with  which  they  are  attend- 
ed. To  which  we  may  add,  that  the  exact  coincidence  ob- 
servable between  the  many  allusions  to  particular  facts,  in 
this,  as  well  as  in  other  Epistles,  and  the  account  of  the 
facts  themselves  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  History  of  the 
Acts,  is  a  remarkable  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  each." 

Be  this  however  as  it  may,  Dr.  Paley  first  brought  the 
argument  to  light  in  support  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul ; 
and  I  am  not  aware  that  it  has  since  been  deliberately  ap- 
plied to  any  other  of  the  sacred  books,  except  by  Dr.  Graves, 
in  two  of  his  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,  to  that  portion 
of  holy  writ.  Much,  however,  of  the  same  kind  of  testi- 
mony I  have  no  doubt  has  escaped  all  of  us  ;  and  still  re- 
mains to  be  detected  by  future  writers  on  the  Evidences. 
For  myself,  though  I  may  not  lay  claim  to  the  merit  (what- 
ever it  may  be)  of  actually  discovering  all  the  examples  of 
consistency  without  contrivance,  wrhich  I  shall  bring  for- 
ward in  this  volume, — indeed,  I  could  not  myself  now  trace 
to  their  beginnings  thoughts  which  have  progressively  ac- 
cumulated1— and  though  in  many  cases,  where  the  detec- 
tion was  my  own.  I  may  have  found,  on  examination,  that 
there  were  others  who  had  forestalled  me,  qui  nostra  ante 

1  I  have  availed  myself  in  this  republication,  of  several  suggestions  on  the 
subject  of  the  Patriarchal  Church,  (No.  i.  Part  i.)  offered  to  me  some  years 
ago  in  a  letter  by  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Burgon  of  Worcester  College,  Oxford ;  and 
of  one  coincidence  (No.  xi.  Part  iv.)  communicated  to  me  in  substance,  by 
letter  also,  by  the  Rev.  J.  Daniel,  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  soon 
after  the  first  Edition  of  the  Veracity  of  the  Gospels  came  out. 


VI  PREFACE. 

nos,  yet  most  of  them  I  have  not  seen  noticed  by  com- 
mentators at  all,  and  scarcely  any  of  them  in  that  light  in 
which  only  I  regard  them,  as  grounds  of  Evidence.  It 
is  to  this  application,  therefore,  of  Expositions,  often  in 
themselves  sufficiently  familiar,  that  I  have  to  beg  the  can- 
did attention  of  my  readers  ;  and  if  I  shall  frequently  bring 
out  of  the  treasures  of  God's  word,  or  of  the  interpretation 
of  God's  word,  "  things  old"  the  use  that  I  make  of  them 
may  not  perhaps  be  thought  so. 

As  the  argument  for  the  Veracity  of  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  derived  from  undesigned  coincidences,  discoverable 
between  them  and  the  Writings  of  Josephus,  does  not  fall 
within  the  general  design  of  this  work,  as  now  constructed, 
and  yet  is  related  to  it,  and  important  in  itself,  I  have 
thought  it  best  not  to  suppress,  but  to  throw  it  into  an  Ap- 
pendix. 

CAMBRIDGE, 
May  3,  1841 


THE  VERACITY 


OF 


THE  BOOKS  OF  MOSES. 


PART  I. 

IT  is  my  intention  to  argue  in  the  following  pages  the 
Veracity  of  the  Books  of  Scripture,  from  the  instances  they 
contain  of  coincidence  without  design,  in  their  several 
parts.  On  the  nature  of  this  argument  I  shall  not  much 
enlarge,  but  refer  my  readers  for  a  general  view  of  it  to  the 
short  dissertation  prefixed  to  the  Horce  Paulince  of  Dr. 
Paley,  a  work  where  it  is  employed  as  a  test  of  the  veracity 
of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  with  singular  felicity  and  force,  and 
for  which  suitable  incidents  were  certainly  much  more 
abundant  than  those  which  any  other  portion  of  Scripture 
of  the  same  extent  provides  ;  still,  however,  if  the  instances 
which  I  can  offer,  gathered  from  the  remainder  of  Holy 
Writ,  are  so  numerous  and  of  such  a  kind  as  to  preclude 
the  possibility  of  their  being  the  effect  of  accident,  it  is 
enough.  It  does  not  require  many  circumstantial  coinci- 
dences to  determine  the  mind  of  a  jury  as  to  the  credibility 
of  a  witness  in  our  courts,  even  where  the  life  of  a  fellow- 
creature  is  at  stake.  I  say  this,  not  as  a  matter  of  charge, 
but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  indicating  the  authority  which  at- 
taches to  this  species  of  evidence,  and  the  confidence  uni- 


8  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  I. 

versally  entertained  that  it  cannot  deceive.  Neither  should 
it  be  forgotten,  that  an  argument  thus  popular,  thus  ap- 
plicable to  the  affairs  of  common  life  as  a  test  of  truth, 
derives  no  small  value  when  enlisted  in  the  cause  ot 
Revelation,  from  the  readiness  with  which  it  is  appre- 
hended and  admitted  by  mankind  at  large  ;  and  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  nature  of  its  appeal ;  for  it  springs  out  of 
the  documents,  the  truth  of  which  it  is  intended  to  sustain, 
and  terminates  in  them ;  so  that  he  who  has  these,  has 
the  defence  of  them. 

2.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  argument  deduced  from  coinci- 
dence without  design  has  further  claims,  because,  if  well 
made  out,  it  establishes  the  authors  of  the  several  books 
of  Scripture  as  independent  witnesses  to  the  facts  they 
relate ;  and  this,  whether  they  consulted  each  other's 
writings,  or  not;  for  the  coincidences,  if  good  for  any- 
thing, are  such  as  could  not  result  from  combination, 
mutual  understanding,  or  arrangement.  If  any  which  I 
may  bring  forward  may  seem  to  be  such  as  might  have  so 
arisen,  they  are  only  to  be  reckoned  ill-chosen,  and  dis- 
missed. For  it  is  no  small  merit  of  this  argument,  that  it 
consists  of  parts,  one  or  more  of  which  (if  they  be  thought 
unsound)  may  be  detached  without  any  dissolution  of  the 
reasoning  as  a  whole.  Undesigned 'n ess  must  be  apparent 
in  the  coincidences,  or  they  are  not  to  the  purpose.  In 
our  argument  we  defy  people  to  sit  down  together,  or 
transmit  their  writings  one  to  another,  and  produce  the 
like.  Truths  known  independently  to  each  of  them,  must 
be  at  the  bottom  of  documents  having  such  discrepancies 
and  such  agreements  as  these  in  question.  The  point, 
therefore,  whether  the  authors  of  the  books  of  Scripture 
have  or  have  not  copied  from  one  another,  which  in  the 
case  of  some  of  them  has  been  so  much  labored,  is  thus 
rendered  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference.  Let  them 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  9 

have  so  done,  still  by  our  argument  their  independence 
would  be  secured,  and  the  nature  of  their  testimony  be 
shown  to  be  such  as  could  only  result  from  their  separate 
knowledge  of  substantial  facts. 

3.  I  will  add  another  consideration  which  seems  to  me 
to  deserve  serious  attention  :  that  in  several  instances  the 
probable  truth  of  a  miracle  is  involved  in  the  coincidence. 
This  is  a  point  which  we  should  distinguish  from  the 
general  drift  of  the  argument  itself.  The  general  drift  of 
our  argument  is  this,  than  when  we  see  the  writers  of  the 
Scriptures  clearly  telling  the  truth  in  those  cases  where  we 
have  the  means  of  checking  their  accounts, — when  we 
see  that  they  are  artless,  consistent,  veracious  writers, 
where  we  have  the  opportunity  of  examining  the  fact,  it 
is  reasonable  to  believe  that  they  are  telling  the  truth  in 
those  cases  where  we  have  not  the  means  of  checking 
them, — that  they  are  veracious  where  we  have  not  the 
means  of  putting  them  to  proof.  But  the  argument  I  am 
now  pressing  is  distinct  from  this.  We  are  hereby  called 
upon,  not  merely  to  assent  that  Moses  and  the  author  of 
the  Book  of  Joshua,  for  example ;  or  Isaiah  and  the  author 
of  the  Book  of  Kings ;  or  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke ; 
epeak  the  truth  when  they  record  a  miracle,  because  we 
know  them  to  speak  the  truth  in  many  other  matters^ 
(though  this  would  be  only  reasonable  where  there  is  no 
impeachment  of  their  veracity  whatever,)  but  we  are  called 
upon  to  believe  a  particular  miracle,  because  the  very  cir- 
cumstances which  attend  it  furnish  the  coincidence.  I 
look  upon  this  as  a  point  of  very  great  importance.  I  do 
not  say  that  the  coincidence  in  such  a  case  establishes 
the  miracle,  but  that  by  establishing  the  truth  of  ordinary 
incidents  which  involve  the  miracle,  which  compass  the 
miracle  round  about,  and  which  cannot  be  separated  frora 


10  THE    VERACITY    DF    THE  PART    I, 

the  miracle  without  the   utter  laceration   of  the  history 
itself,  it  goes  very  near  to  establish  it. 

4.  On  the  whole,  it  is  surely  a  striking  fact,  and  one 
that  could  scarcely  happen  in  any  continuous  fable,  how- 
ever cunningly  devised,  that  annals  written  by  so  many 
hands,  embracing  so  many  generations  of  men,  relating  to 
so  many  different  states  of  society,  abounding  in  super- 
natural incidents  throughout,  when  brought  to  this  same 
touchstone  of  truth,  undesignedness,  should  still  not  flinch 
from  it ;  and  surely  the  character  of  a  history,  like  the 
character  of  an  individual,  when  attested  by  vouchers  not 
of  one  family,  or  of  one  place,  or  of  one  date  only,  but  by 
such  as  speak  to  it  under  various  relations,  in  different 
situations,  and  at  divers  periods  of  time,  can  scarcely 
deceive  us. 

Perhaps  I  may  add,  that  the  turn  which  biblical  criti- 
cism has  of  late  years  taken,  gives  the  peculiar  argument 
here  employed  the  advantage  of  being  the  word  in  season : 
and  whilst  the  articulation  of  Scripture  (so  to  speak), 
occupied  with  its  component  parts,  may  possibly  cause  it 
to  be  less  regarded  than  it  should  be  in  the  mass  and  as  a 
whole,  the  effect  of  this  argument  is  to  establish  the  gen- 
eral truth  of  Scripture,  and  with  that  to  content  itself ;  its 
general  truth,  I  mean,  considered  with  a  reference  to  all 
practical  purposes,  which  is  our  chief  concern :  and  thus 
to  pluck  the  sting  out  of  those  critical  difficulties,  however 
numerous  and  however  minute,  which  in  themselves  have  a 
tendency  to  excite  our  suspicion  and  trouble  our  peace.  Its 
effect,  I  say,  is  to  es  lablish  the  general  truth  of  Scripture, 
because  by  this  investigation  1  find  occasional  tokens  of  ve- 
racity, such  as  cannot,  I  think,  mislead  us,  breaking  out,  as 
the  volume  is  unrolled,  unconnected,  unconcerted,  unlocked 
for ;  tokens  which  I  hail  as  guarantees  for  more  facts  than 
they  actually  cover ;  as  spots  which  truth  has  singled  out 


PART  I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  11 

whereon  to  set  her  seal,  in  testimony  that  the  whole  docu- 
mentj  of  which  they  are  a  part,  is  her  own  act  and  deed  ; 
as  pass-words,  with  which  the  Providence  of  God  has  taken 
care  to  furnish  his  ambassadors,  which,  though  often  trifling 
in  themselves,  and  having  no  proportion  (it  may  be)  to  the 
length  or  importance  of  the  tidings  they  accompany,  are 
still  enough  to  prove  the  bearers  to  be  in  the  confidence  of 
their  Almighty  Sovereign,  and  to  be  qualified  to  execute 
the  general  commission  with  which  they  are  charged 
under  his  authority. 

I  shall  produce  the  instances  of  coincidence  without 
design  which  I  have  to  offer,  in  the  order  of  the  Books  of 
Scripture  that  supply  them,  beginning  with  the  Books  of 
Moses.  But  before  I  proceed  to  individual  cases,  I  will 
endeavor  to  develop  a  principle  upon,  which  the  Book  of 
Genesis  goes  as  a  whole,  for  this  is  in  itself  an  example 
of  consistency. 


THERE  may  be  those  who  look  upon  the  Book  of 
Genesis  as  an  epitome  of  the  general  history  of  the  world 
in  its  early  ages,  and  of  the  private  history  of  certain 
families  more  distinguished  than  the  rest.  And  so  it  is, 
and  on  a  first  view  it  may  seem  to  be  little  else ;  but  if  we 
consider  it  more  closely,  I  think  we  may  convince  ourselves 
of  the  truth  of  this  proposition,  that  it  contains  fragments 
(as  it  were)  of  the  fabric  of  a  Patriarchal  Church,  frag- 
ments scattered  indeed  and  imperfect,  but  capable  of  com- 
bination, and  when  combined,  consistent  as  a  whole. 
Now  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  that  any  impostor  would 
set  himself  to  compose  a  book  upon  a  plan  so  recondite ; 
nor,  if  he  did,  would  it  be  possible  for  him  to  execute  it  aa 


12  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    I. 

it  is  executed  here.  For  the  incidents  which  go  to  prove 
this  proposition  are  to  be  picked  out  from  among  many 
others,  and  on  being  brought  together  by  ourselves,  they 
are  found  to  agree  together  as  parts  of  a  system,  though 
they  are  not  contemplated  as  such,  or  at  least  are  not  pro- 
duced as  such,  by  the  author  himself. 

I  am  aware  that,  whilst  we  are  endeavoring  to  obtain  a 
view  of  such  a  Patriarchal  Church  by  the  glimpses  af- 
forded us  in  Genesis,  there  is  a  danger  of  our  theology 
becoming  visionary : — it  is  a  search  upon  which  the  imagi- 
nation enters  with  alacrity,  and  readily  breaks  its  bounds 
— it  has  done  so  in  former  times  and  in  our  own.  Still 
the  principle  of  such  investigation  is  good  ;  for  out  of  God's 
book,  as  out  of  God's  world,  more  may  be  often  concluded 
than  our  philosophy  at  first  suspects.  The  principle  is 
good,  for  it  is  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  himself,  who  re- 
proaches the  Sadducees  with  not  knowing  those  Scriptures 
which  they  received,  because  they  had  not  deduced  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  state  from  the  words  of  Moses,  "  i  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob,"  though  the  doctrine  was  there  if  they  would  but 
have  sought  it  out.  One  consideration,  however,  we  must 
take  along  with  us  in  this  inquiry,  that  the  Books  of 
Moses  are  in  most  cases  a  very  incomplete  history  of  facts 
— telling  something  and  leaving  a  great  deal  untold — 
abounding  in  chasms  which  cannot  be  filled  up — not, 
therefore,  to  be  lightly  esteemed  even  in  their  hints,  for 
hints  are  often  all  that  they  offer. 

The  proofs  of  this  are  numberless ;  but  as  it  is  impor- 
tant to  my  argument  that  the  thing  itself  should  be  dis- 
tinctly borne  in  mind,  I  will  name  a  few.  Thus  if  we 
read  the  history  of  Joseph  as  it  is  given  in  the  37th  chapter 
of  Genesis,  where  his  brethren  first  put  him  into  the  pit 
and  then  sell  him  to  the  Ishmaelits,  we  might  conclude 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  13 

that  he  was  himself  quite  passive  in  the  whole  transaction. 
Yet  when  the  brothers  happen  to  talk  together  upon  this 
same  subject  many  years  afterwards  in  Egypt,  they  say 
one  to  another,  "  We  are  verily  guilty  concerning  our 
brother,  in  that  we  saw  the  anguish  of  his  soul  when  he 
besought  us,  and  we  would  not  hear."1  All  these  fervent 
entreaties  are  sunk  in  the  direct  history  of  the  event,  and 
only  come  out  by  accident  after  all.  As  another  instance. 
The  simple  account  of  Jacob's  reluctance  to  part  with  Ben- 
jamin, would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  expressed  and 
overcome  in  a  short  time,  and  with  no  great  effort.  Yet 
we  incidentally  hear  from  Judah  that  this  family  struggle 
(for  such  it  seems  to  have  been)  had  occupied  as  much 
time  as  would  have  sufficed  for  a  journey  to  Egypt  and 
back.2  As  a  third  instance.  The  several  blessings  which 
Jacob  bestows  on  his  sons  have  probably  a  reference  to  the 
past  as  well  as  to  the  future  fortunes  of  each.  In  the  case 
of  Reuben,  the  allusion  happens  to  be  a  circumstance  in 
his  life,  with  which  we  are  already  acquainted ;  here, 
therefore,  we  understand  the  old  man's  address8 ;  but  in 
the  case  of  several  at  least  of  his  other  sons,  where  there 
are  probably  similar  allusions  to  events  in  their  lives  too, 
which  have  not,  however,  been  left  on  record,  there  is  much 
that  is  obscure — the  brevity  of  the  previous  narrative  not 
supplying  us  with  the  proper  key  to  the  blessing.  As  a 
fourth  instance.  The  address  of  Jacob  on  his  death-bed  to 
Reuben,  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  shows  how  deeply 
Jacob  resented  the  wrong  done  him  by  this  son  many  years 
before,  and  proves  what  a  breach  it  must  have  made  be- 
tween them  at  the  time  ;  yet  all  that  is  said  of  it  in  the 
Mosaic  history  is,  "  and  Israel  heard  it,"4 — not  a  syllable 
more.  It  is  needless  to  multiply  instances ;  all  that  I  wish 
to  impress  is  this,  that  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  a_Aml  ia 
1  Gen.  xlii.  21.  2  xliii.  10.  3  xlix.  4.  <  mv.  22. 

2 


14  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

not  to  be  wasted,  but  improved  j  and  that  he  who  expects 
every  probable  deduction  from  Scripture  to  be  made  out 
complete  in  all  its  parts  before  he  will  admit  it,  expects 
more  than  he  will  in  many  cases  meet  with,  and  will  learn 
much  less  than  he  might  otherwise  learn. 

Having  made  these  preliminary  remarks,  I  shall  now 
proceed  to  collect  the  detached  incidents  in  Genesis  which 
appear  to  point  out  the  existence  of  a  Patriarchal  Church. 
And  the  circumstance  of  so  many  incidents  tending  to  this 
one  centre,  though  evidently  without  being  marshalled  or 
arranged,  implies  veracity  in  the  record  itself;  for  it  is  a 
very  comprehensive  instance  of  coincidence  without  design 
in  the  several  parts  of  that  record. 

1.  First,  then,  the  Patriarchs  seem  to  have  had  places 
set  apart  for  the  worship  of  God,  consecrated,  as  it  were, 
especially  to  His  service.  To  do  things  "  before  the  Lord,1 
is  a  phrase  not  unfrequently  occurring,  and  generally  in  a 
local  sense.  Cain  and  Abel  appear  to  have  brought  their 
offerings  to  the  same  spot — it  might  be,  (as  some  have 
thought,)1  to  the  East  of  the  Garden,  where  the  symbols 
of  God's  presence  w7ere  displayed  ;  and  when  Cain  is  ban- 
ished from  his  first  dwelling,  and  driven  to  wander  upon 
the  earth,  he  is  said  to  have  "  gone  out  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord  ;"2  as  though,  in  the  land  where  he  was  hence- 
forward to  live,  he  would  no  longer  have  access  to  the  spot 
where  God  had  more  especially  set  his  name  :  or  it  might 
be  a  sacred  tent3  for  it  is  told  Cain,  "  if  thou  doest  not  well, 
sin,  (i.  e.  a  sin-offering)  lieth  at  the  door  :"3  and  we  know 
that  the  sacrifices  were  constantly  brought  to  the  door  of 
the  Tabernacle,  in  later  times.4  Again,  when  the  angels 
had  left  Abraham,  and  were  gone  towards  Sodom.  "  Abra- 

1  Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.  b.  v.  §  11.    Vide  Mr.  Faber's  Three  Dispensations, 
Vol.  I.  p.  8 ;  and  comp.  Wisdom,  ix.  9. 

2  Gen.  iv.  16.  3  ib.  iv.  7.  4  See  Lightfoot,  i.  3. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  15 

ham,"  we  read,  "  stood  yet  before  the  Lord"1  i.  e.  he  staid 
to  plead  with  God  for  Sodom  in  the  place  best  suited  to 
such  a  service,  the  place  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made ;  and  accordingly  it  follows  immediately  after,  "  and 
Abraham  drew  near  and  said  ;"2  and  again,  the  next  day, 
"  Abraham  gat  up  early  in  the  morning,"  (probably  his 
usual  hour  of  prayer,)  "  to  the  place  where  he  stood  before 
the  Lord"3  the  same  where  he  had  put  up  his  intercessions 
to  God  the  day  before  ;  in  short,  the  place  where  he  "  built 
an  altar  unto  the  Lord,"  when  he  first  came  to  dwell  in 
the  plain  of  Mamre,4  for  that  was  still  the  scene  of  this 
transaction.  Again,  of  Rebekah  we  read,  that  when  the 
children  struggled  within  her,  "  she  went  to  inquire  of  the 
Lord,"  and  an  answer  was  received  prophetic  of  the  different 
fortunes  of  those  children.5  And  when  Isaac  contempla- 
ted blessing  his  son,  which  was  a  religious  act,  a  solemn 
appeal  to  God  to  remember  His  covenant  unto  Abraham, 
it  was  to  be  done  "  before  the  Lord"*  The  place  might 
be  as  I  have  just  said,  an  altar  such  as  was  put  up  by 
Abraham  at  Hebron,  by  Isaac  at  Beer-sheba,  or  by  Jacob 
at  Beth-el,  where  they  respectively  dwelt  ;7  it  might  be,  as 
I  have  also  suggested,  a  separate  tent,  and  a  tent  actually 
was  set  apart  by  Moses  outside  the  camp,  before  the  Tab- 
ernacle was  erected,  where  every  one  repaired  who  sought 
the  Lord  /  or  it  might  be  a  separate  part  of  a  chamber 
of  the  tent ;  but  however  that  was,  the  expression  is  a  defi- 
nite one,  and  relates  to  some  appointed  quarter  to  which 
the  family  resorted  for  purposes  of  devotion.  Accord- 
ingly the  very  same  expression  is  used  in  after-times,  when 
the  Tabernacle  had  been  set  up,  confessedly  as  the  place 
where  the  people  were  to  assemble  for  prayer  and  sacrifice, 

1  Gen.  xviii.  22.  *  ib.  xviii.  23.  3  Ib.  xix.  27. 

4  Ib.  xiii.  18.  s  ib.  xxv.  22.  •   ib.  xxvii.  t. 

?  See  Gen.  xiii.  18;  xxvi.  25 fxxxv.  6.  8  Exod.  xxxiii.  7. 


x6  THE    VERACITY    O*    THE  PART    I. 

"  He  shall  offer  it  of  his  own  voluntary  will  at  the  door  of 
the  Tabernacle  of  the  congregation  before  the  Lord,  and 
he  shall  kill  the  bullock  before  the  Lord."1  "  Three  times 
in  the  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose."2  Here  there  can 
be  no  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ;  it  occurs, 
indeed,  some  five-and-thirty  times  in  the  last  four  books  of 
Moses,  and  in  all  as  significant  of  the  place  set  apart  for 
the  worship  of  God.  I  conclude  therefore  that  in  those  pas- 
sages of  Genesis  which  I  have  quoted,  Moses  employs  the 
same  expression  in  the  same  sense. 

Such  are  some  of  the  hints  which  seem  to  point  to 
places  of  patriarchal  worship. 

2.  In  like  manner,  and  by  evidences  of  the  same  indirect 
and  imperfect  kind,  I  gather  that  there  were  persons 
whose  business  it  was  to  perform  the  rites  of  that  worship 
— not  perhaps  their  sole  business,  but  their  appropriate 
business.  Whether  the  first-born  was  by  right  of  birth 
the  priest  also  has  been  doubted  ;  at  the  same  time  it  is 
obvious  that  this  circumstance  would  often,  perhaps  gener- 
ally where  there  was  no  impediment,  point  him  out  as  the 
fit  person  to  keep  alive  in  his  own  household  the  fear  of 
that  God  who  alone  could  make  it  to  prosper.  Persons, 
however,  invested  with  the  sacerdotal  office  there  undoubt- 
edly were  ;  such  was  Melchizedeck  "  the  Priest  of  the 
Most  High  God,"  as  he  is  expressly  called,9  and  the  func- 
tions of  his  ministry  he  publicly  performs  towards  Abraham, 
blessing  him  as  God's  servant,  as  the  instrument  by  which 
His  arm  had  overthrown  the  confederate  kings,  and  re- 
ceiving from  Abraham  a  tenth  of  the  spoil,  which  could  be 
nothing  but  a  religious  offering,  and  which  indeed,  as  such, 
is  the  ground  of  St.  Paul's  argument  for  the  superiority  of 

i  Lev.  i.  3.  3  Deut.  xvt.  16.  3  Gen.  xiv.  1& 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  17 

Christ's  priesthood  over  the  Levitical. l  Such  probably  was 
Jethro  "  the  Priest  of  Midian."8  Moreover,  we  find  the 
priests  expressly  mentioned  as  a  body  of  functionaries  ex- 
isting amongst  the  Israelites  even  before  the  consecration  of 
Aaron  and  his  sons  ;3  the  "young  men"  who  offered  burnt- 
offerings,  spoken  of  Exod.  xxiv.  5,  being  the  same  under  a 
different  name,  probably  the  first-born.  Then  if  we  read 
of  Patriarchal  Priests,  so  do  we  of  Patriarchal "  Preachers 
of  Righteousness,"  as  in  Noah.4  So  do  we  of  Patriarchal 
Prophets,  as  in  Abraham,5  as  in  Balaam,  as  in  Job,  as  in 
Enoch.  All  these  are  hints  of  a  Patriarchal  Church,  dif- 
fering perhaps  less  in  its  construction  and  in  the  manner 
in  which  God  was  pleased  to  use  it,  as  the  means  of  keeping 
himself  in  remembrance  amongst  men,  from  the  churches 
which  have  succeeded,  than  may  be  at  first  imagined. 

3.  Pursue  we  the  inquiry,  and  I  think  a  hint  may  be 
discovered  of  a  peculiar  dress  assigned  to  the  Patriarchal 
Priest  when  he  officiated ;  for  Jacob,  being  already  pos- 
sessed of  the  birthright,  and  probably  in  this  instance  of 
the  priesthood  with  it,  since  Esau  by  surrendering  the 
birthright  became  "profane"*  goes  in  to  Isaac  to  receive 
the  blessing,  a  religious  act,  as  I  have  already  said,  to  be 
done  before  the  Lord.  Now  on  this  occasion,  Rebekah 
took  "  goodly  raiment"  (such  is  our  translation)  "  of  her 
eldest  son  Esau,  which  were  with  her  in  the  house,  and 
put  them  upon  Jacob  her  youngest  son."7  Were  these  the 
sacerdotal  robes  of  the  first-born?  It  occurred  to  me 
that  they  might  be  so ;  and  on  reference  I  find  that  the 
Jews  themselves  so  interpreted  them,8  an  interpretation 
which  has  been  treated  by  Dr.  Patrick  more  contemplu- 

1  Heb.  vii.  9.  2  Exod.  ii.  16.  3  Exod.  xix.  22. 

«  2  Peter  ii.  5.  5  Gen.  xx.  7.  «  Heb.  xii.  16. 

i  Gen.  xxvii.  15.  8  Vide  Patrick  in  loc. 

2* 


18  THE     TERACITY    OF    THE  PART    1. 

ously  than  it  deserved  to  be  ;*  for  I  look  upon  it  as  a  trifle 
indeed,  but  still  as  a  trifle  which  is  a  component  part  of 
the  system  I  am  endeavoring  to  trace  out;  had  it  stood 
alone  it  would  have  been  fruitless  perhaps  to  have  haz- 
arded a  word  upon  it — as  it  stands  in  conjunction  with  so 
many  other  indications  of  a  Patriarchal  Church  it  has  its 
weight.  Now  I  do  not  say  that  the  Hebrew  expression2 
here  rendered  "raiment"  (for  of  the  epithet  "  goodly"  I  will 
speak  by  and  by,)  is  exclusively  confined  to  the  garments 
of  a  priest ;  it  is  certainly  a  term  of  considerable  latitude, 
and  is  by  no  means  to  be  so  restricted ;  still  when  the 
priest's  garments  are  to  be  expressed  by  any  general  term 
at  all,  it  is  always  by  the  one  in  question.  Yet  there  is 
another  term  in  the  Hebrew,3  perhaps  of  as  frequent  oc- 
currence, and  also  a  comprehensive  term  ;  but  whilst  this 
latter  is  constantly  applied  to  the  dress  of  other  individuals 
of  both  sexes,  I  do  not  find  it  ever  applied  to  the  dress  of 
the  priests.  The  distinction  and  the  argument  will  be  best 
illustrated  by  examples : — Thus  we  read  in  Leviticus,4  ac- 
cording to  our  version,  "  the  high-priest  that  is  consecrated 
to  put  on  the  garments,  shall  not  uncover  his  head,  nor 
rend  his  clothes"  The  word  here  translated  " garments" 
in  the  one  clause,  and  "  clothes"  in  the  other,  is  in  the 
Hebrew  in  both  clauses  the  same — is  the  word  in  question 
— is  the  raiment  of  Esau  which  Rebekah  took,  and  in 
both  clauses  the  priests'  dress  is  meant,  and  no  other.  So 
again,  what  are  called*  "  the  clothes  of  service,"  is  still  the 

i  More  especially  as  he  quotes  in  another  place  (on  Exod.  xxviii.  2,)  an 
opinion  of  the  Hebrew  Doctors,  that  vestments  were,  inseparable  from  the 
priesthood,  so  that  Adam,  Abel,  and  Cain  did  not  sacrifice  without  them ;  see 
Gen.  iii.  22:  and  again,  (on  Exod.  xxviii.  35,)  a  maxim  among  the- Jews, 
that  when  the  priests  were  clothed  with  their  garments  they  were  priests; 
when  they  were  not  so  clothed,  they  were  not  priests. 

2  D^2  3  rreVia  nbato  4  Chap.  xxi.  10. 

*  Exod.  xxxv.  19. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF   MOSES.  19 

same  word,  as  implying  Aaron9 s  clothes,  or  those  of  his 
sons,  and  no  other.  And  again,  Moses  says,1  "  uncover 
not  your  heads,  neither  rend  your  clothes,  lest  ye  die ;" 
still  the  word  is  the  same,  for  he  is  there  speaking  to 
Aaron  a.id  his  sons,  and  to  none  other.  But  when  he 
says,2  "  your  clothes  are  not  waxed  old."  the  Hebrew  word 
is  no  longer  the  same,  though  the  English  word  is,  but  is 
the  other  wor.l  of  which  I  spoke  ;3  for  the  clothes  of  the 
people  are  here  signified,  and  not  of  the  priests. 

This,  therefore,  is  all  that  can  be  maintained,  that  the 
term  used  to  express  the  "  raiment"  which  Rebekah 
brought  out  for  Jacob,  is  the  term  which  should  express 
appropriately  the  dress  of  the  priest,  though  it  certainly 
would  not  express  it  exclusively.  But  again,  the  epithet 
"goodly"  (or  "  desirable"*  as  the  margin  renders  it  more 
closely,)  annexed  to  the  raiment  is  still  in  favor  of  our  in- 
terpretation, though  neither  is  this  word,  any  more  than 
the  other,  conclusive  of  the  question.  Certainly,  however, 
it  is,  that  though  the  word  translated  u  goodly"  is  not  re- 
stricted to  sacred  things,  it  does  so  happen  that  to  sacred 
things  it  is  attached  in  very  many  instances,  if  not  in  a 
majority  of  instances  where  it  occurs  in  Holy  Writ.  Thus 
the  utensils  of  the  Temple  which  Nebuchadnezzar  carried 
away  are  called  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles5  the  goodly 
vessels  of  the  House  of  the  Lord."  And  Isaiah  writes, 
"all  our  pleasant  things  are  laid  waste,"6  meaning  the 
Temple — the  word  here  rendered  "pleasant."  being  the 
same  as  that  in  the  former  passages  rendered  "  goodly  ;" 
and  in  the  Lamentations7  we  read,  "  the  adversary  hath 
spread  out  his  hand  upon  all  our  pleasant  things,"  where 
the  Temple  is  again  understood,  as  the  context  proves; 

i  Lev.  x.  6.  2  Deut.  xxix.  5.  3    nsVa 

4   r^pnn  *  2  Chron.  ixxvi.  10.        «  Isa.  Ixiv.  11. 

7  Lam!  L  10 


20  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    I. 

and  in  Genesis,1  "  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make  one  wise." 
the  term  perhaps  meant  to  convey  a  hint  of  violated 
sanctity  as  entering  into  the  offence  of  our  first  parents. 
In  other  places  it  occurs  in  a  bad  sense,  as  relating  to  what 
was  held  sacred  by  heathens  only,  but  still  what  was  held 
sacred — "  The  oaks  which  ye  have  desired"*  "  all  pleasant 
pictures,"3  objects  of  idolatry,  as  the  tenor  of  the  passage 
indicates — "  their  delectable  things  shall  not  profit,"4  that 
is,  their  idols.  I  may  add  too,  that  the  awl^  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  (for  this  answers  to  the  "  raiment"  of  our  version,) 
though  not  limited  to  the  robe  of  the  altar,  is  the  term 
used  in  the  Greek  as  the  appropriate  one  for  the  robe 
of  Aaron ;  and  finally,  that  the  care  with  which  this  ves- 
ture had  been  kept  by  Rebekah,  and  the  perfumes  with 
which  it  was  imbued  when  Jacob  wore  it,  (for  Isaac 
"  smelled  the  smell  of  his  raiment,")  savor  of  things  per- 
taining unto  God. 

Again,  it  seems  to  be  by  no  means  improbable  that 
"  the  coat  of  many  colors?  (xirwra  notxAor,  as  the  LXX. 
understands  it5)  which  Jacob  made  for  Joseph,  was  a 
sacerdotal  garment.  It  figures  very  largely  in  a  very 
short  history.  It  appears  to  have  been  viewed  with  great 
jealousy  by  his  brothers;  far  greater  than  an  ordinary 
dress,  which  merely  bespoke  a  certain  partiality  on  the 
part  of  a  parent,  would  have  been  likely  to  inspire.  They 
strip  him  of  it,  when  they  put  him  in  the  pit ;  they  dip  it 
in  the  blood  of  the  goat,  when  they  want  to  persuade 
Jacob  that  a  wild  beast  had  devoured  him.  Reuben,  Jacob's 
first-born,  and  naturally  therefore  the  Priest  of  the  family, 
had  forfeited  his  father's  affection  and  disgraced  his  station 
oy  his  conduct  towards  Bilhah.  Jacob  might  feel  that 

i  Gen.  iii.  6.  2  Isa.  i.  29.  3  ibid.  ii.  Jfc 

4  Ibid.  xliv.  9.  5  Gen.  XXXTU.  3. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  21 

the  priesthood  was  open  under  the  circumstances ;  and  his 
fondness  for  Joseph  might  suggest  to  him,  that  he  might 
in  justice  be  considered  his  first-born:  for  that  he  sup- 
posed Rachel,  Joseph's  mother,  to  be  his  wife,  when  Leah, 
Reuben's  mother,  had  been  deceitfully  substituted  for  her. 
He  might  give  him  therefore,  "  this  coat  of  many  colors," 
as  a  token  of  his  future  office.  Hannah  brought  Samuel 
"  a  little  coat"  from  year  to  year,  when  she  came  up  with 
her  husband  to  offer  his  yearly  sacrifice:1  and,  though 
Aaron's  coat  is  not  called  a  coat  of  many  colors,  it  was  so 
in  fact :  "  and  of  the  blue  and  purple  and  scarlet  they 
made  cloths  of  service,  to  do  service  in  the  holy  place,  and 
made  the  holy  garments  for  Aaron."2  On  the  whole, 
therefore,  I  think  there  was  a  meaning  in  this  "  coat  of 
many  colors,"  beyond  the  obvious  one  ;  and  that  it  was 
emblematical  of  priestly  functions  which  Jacob  was  anxious 
to  devolve  upon  Joseph. 

4.  Furthermore,  the  Patriarchal  Church  seems  not  to 
have  been  without  its  forms.  Thus  Jacob  consecrates 
the  foundation  of  a  place  of  worship  with  oil  ;3  the  incident 
here  alluded  to  being  apparently  a  much  more  detailed 
and  emphatic  one  than  it  seems  at  first  sight :  for  we  find 
him,  by  anticipation,  calling  "  this  the  house  of  God,  and 
this  the  gate  of  heaven,"4  and  promising  eventually  to 
endow  it  with  tithes  :5  and  we  hear  God  reminding  him  of 
this  solemn  act  long  afterwards,  when  he  was  in  Syria, 
ana  appropriating  to  himself  the  very  title  of  this  Temple : 
"  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel,  where  thou  anointedst  the  pillar, 
and  where  thou  vowedst  a  vow  unto  me."6  And  accord- 
ingly we  are  told  at  much  length,  and  with  several  of  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  described,  that  Jacob,  after  his 

i  1  Sam.  ii.  19.  2  Exod.  xxxix.  1.  3  Gen.  xxviii.  18. 

•  Ib.  xxviii.  17.  «  Ib.  xxviii.  22.  «  Ibid.  xxxi.  13. 


22  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    I. 

return  from  Haran,  actually  fulfilled  his  pious  intentions, 
and  "  built  an  altar,"  and  "  set  up  a  pillar,"  and  "  poured  a 
drink-offering  thereon."1 

Then  there  appears  to  have  been  the  rite  of  imposition 
of  hands  existing  in  the  Patriarchal  Church  :  and  when 
Jacob  blessed  Joseph's  children  he  is  very  careful  about 
the  due  observance  of  it ;  the  narrative,  succinct  as  on  the 
whole  it  is,  dwelling  upon  this  point  with  much  amplifi- 
cation.2 

Again,  the  shoes  of  those  who  trod  upon  holy  ground, 
or  who  entered  consecrated  places  were  to  be  put  off  their 
feet ;  the  injunction  to  this  effect,  of  which  we  read  in  the 
case  of  Moses  at  the  bush,  implies  a  usage  already  estab- 
lished ;3  and  this  usage,  though  nowhere  expressly  com- 
manded in  the  Levitical  Law,  appears  to  have  continued 
amongst  the  Israelites  by  tradition  from  the  Patriarchal 
times ;  and  is  that  which  a  passage  in  Ecclesiastes4  probably 
contemplates  in  its  primary  sense,  "  Look  to  thy  foot  when 
thou  comest  to  the  House  of  God.'*  And  finally  the 
Patriarchal  Church  had  its  posture  of  worship,  and  men 
bowed  themselves  to  the  ground  when  they  addressed 
God.' 

But  if  there  were  Patriarchal  Places  for  worship — if 
there  were  Priests  to  conduct  the  worship — if  there  were 
decent  Robes  wherein  those  priests  ministered  at  the  wor- 
ship— if  there  were  Forms  connected  with  that  worship ; 
so  do  I  think  there  were  stated  Seasons  set  apart  for  it : 
though  here  again  we  have  nothing  but  hints  to  guide  us 
to  a  conclusion. 

5.  I  confess  that  the  Divine  institution  of  the  Sabbath 


»  Gen.  xxxv.  1.  15.  «  Ibid,  xlviii.  13—19.  3  Excel,  iii.  5. 

*  Eccles.  v.  1.  s  See  Mede's  Works,  b.  ii.  p.  340  et  seq. 

•  Gen.  xxiv.  26—52 ;  Exod.  iv.  31 ;  xii.  27. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  23 

as  a  day  of  religious  duties,  seems  to  me  to  have  been 
from  the  beginning  ;  and  though  we  have  but  glimpses 
of  such  a  fact,  still  to  rny  eye  they  present  themselves  as 
parts  of  that  one  harmonious  whole  which  I  am  now 
endeavoring  to  develop  and  draw  out — even  of  a  Patriar- 
chal Church,  whereof  we  see  scarcely  anything  but  by 
glimpse. 

"And  it  came  to  pass  that  on  the  sixth  day  they 
gathered  twice  as  much  bread,  two  omers  for  one  man, 
and  all  the  rulers  of  the  congregation  came,  and  told 
Moses.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  that  which  the 
Lord  hath  said,  To-morrow  is  the  rest  of  the  Holy  Sab- 
bath unto  the  Lord.  Six  days  ye  shall  gather  it ;  but  on 
the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  Sabbath,  in  it  there  shall  be 
none."1  Arid  again,  in  a  few  verses  after,  "And  the  Lord 
said  unto  Moses,  How  long  refuse  ye  to  keep  my  com- 
mandments and  my  laws  ?  See,  for  that  the  Lord  hath 
given  you  the  Sabbath,  therefore  he  giveth  you  on  the 
sixth  day  the  bread  of  two  days."  Now  the  transaction 
here  recorded  is  by  some  argued  to  be  the  first  institution 
of  the  Sabbath.  The  inference  I  draw  from  it,  I  confess, 
is  different.  I  see  in  it,  that  a  Sabbath  had  already  been 
appointed — that  the  Lord  had  already  given  it ;  and  that, 
in  accommodation  to  that  institution  already  understood, 
he  had  doubled  the  manna  on  the  sixth  day.  But  even 
supposing  the  Institution  of  the  Sabbath  to  be  here  formally 
proclaimed,  or  supposing  (as  others  would  have  it,  and  as 
the  Jews  themselves  pretend,)  that  it  was  not  now  promul- 
gated, strictly  speaking,  but  was  actually  one  of  the  two 
precepts  given  a  little  earlier  at  Marah,2  still  it  is  not  un- 
common in  the  writings  of  Moses,  nor  indeed  in  other 
parts  of  Scripture,  for  an  event  to  be  mentioned  as  then 

1  Fsod.  jvi.  23.  s  Ex  id.  xv.  25,  and  compare  Deut.  v.  lil 


tA.  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    I. 

occurring  for  the  first  time,  which  had  in  fact  occurred, 
and  which  had  been  reported  to  have  occurred,  long  before. 
For  instance,  Isaac  and  Abimelech  meet,  and  swear  to  do 
each  other  no  injury.  "And  it  came  to  pass  the  same 
day,  that  Isaac's  servants  came  and  told  him  concerning 
the  well  which  they  had  digged,  and  said  unto  him,  We 
have  found  water  :  and  he  called  it  Shebah  ;  therefore  the 
name  of  the  city  is  Beer-Sheba  unto  this  day"1  Now 
who  would  not  say  that  the  name  was  then  given  to  the 
place  by  Isaac,  and  for  the  first  time  ?  Yet  it  had  been 
undoubtedly  given  by  Abraham  long  before,  in  commemo- 
ration of  a  similar  covenant  which  he  had  struck  with 
the  Abimelech  of  fiis  day  "These  seven  ewe-lambs," 
said  he  to  that  Prince,  "shall  thou  take  at  my  hand,  that 
they  may  be  a  witness?  unto  thee  that  I  have  digged  this 
well ;  wherefore  he  called  the  place  Beer-Sheba,  beause 
they  sware  both  of  them."2  Again,  "  So  Jacob  came  to 
Luz,  which  is  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  that  is,  Beth-el,  he 
and  all  his  people  that  were  with  him.  And  he  built  there 
an  altar,  and  called  the  place  El-Beth-el,  because  there 
God  appeared  unto  him  when  he  fled  from  the  face  of  his 
brother."8  Who  would  not  conclude  that  the  new  name 
was  given  to  Luz  now  for  the  first  time  ?  Yet  Jacob  had 
in  fact  changed  the  name  a  great  many  years  before, 
when  he  was  on  his  journey  to  Haran.  "  And  Jacob  rose 
up  early  in  the  morning,  and  took  the  stone  that  he  had 
put  for  his  pillows,  and  set  it  up  for  a  pillar,  and  poured 
oil  upon  the  top  of  it.  And  he  called  the  name  of  that 
place  Beth-el :  but  the  name  of  the  city  was  called  Luz  at 
the  first."4  Or,  as  another  instance  : — "And  God  appeared 
unto  Jacob  again  when  he  came  out  of  Padan-Aram,  and 

1  Gen.  xxvi.  32.  2  Gen.  xxi.  31. 

3  Ib.  xxxv.  6,  7  «  Ib.  xxviii.  18, 19. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  25 

blessed  him  :  and  God  said  unto  him,  Thy  name  is  Jacob, 
thy  name  shall  not  be  called  any  more  Jacob,  but  Israel 
shall  be  thy  name,  and  he  called  his  name  Israel"1  Who 
would  not  suppose  that  the  name  of  Israel  was  now  given 
to  Jacob  for  the  first  time?  Yet  several  chapters  before 
this,  when  Jacob  had  wrestled  with  the  angel,  (not  at 
Beth-el,  which  was  the  former  scene,  but  at  Peniel,)  we 
read,  that  "the  angel  said,  What  is  thy  name?  and  he 
said  Jacob :  and  he  said,  Thy  name  shall  be  called  no 
more  Jacob,  but  Israel ;  for  as  a  prince  hast  thou  power 
with  God,  and  with  man,  and  hast,  prevailed."2 

Thus  again,  to  add  one  example  more,  we  are  told  in 
the  Book  of  Judges,3  that  a  certain  Jair,  a  Gileadite,  a 
successor  of  Abimelech  in  the  government  of  Israel,  "  had 
thirty  sons  that  rode  on  thirty  ass-colts,  and  they  had  thirty 
cities,  which  are  called  Havoth-Jair  unto  this  day,  which 
are  in  the  land  of  Gilead."  Who  would  not  conclude  that 
the  cities  were  then  called  by  this  name  for  the  first  time, 
and  that  this  Jair  was  the  person  from  whom  they  de- 
rived it?  Yet  we  read  in  the  Book  of  Numbers.4  that 
another  Jair,  who  lived  nearly  three  hundred  years  earlier, 
"went  and  took  the  small  towns  of  Gilead"  (apparently 
these  very  same.)  "  and  called  them  Havoth-Jair"  So  that 
the  name  had  been  given  nearly  three  centuries  already. 
Why,  then,  should  it  be  thought  strange  that  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sabbath  should  be  mentioned  as  if  for  the  first 
time  in  the  16th  chapter  of  Exodus,  and  yet  that  it  should 
have  been  in  fact  founded  at  the  creation  of  the  world,  as 
the  language  of  the  2nd  chapter  of  Genesis,5  taken  in  its 
obvious  meaning,  implies ;  and  as  St.  Paul's  argument  in 
the  4th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (I  think)  re- 


1  Gen.  xxxv.  10.  2  Ib.  xxxii.  28.  3  Judges  x.  4. 

*  Num.  xxxii.  41.          5  Gen.  ii.  3. 

3 


26  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    I. 

quires  it  to  have  been  ? — Nor  is  such  a  case  without  a 
parallel.  "  Moses  gave  unto  you  circumcision,"  says  our 
Lord  ;  yet  there  is  added,  "  not  because  it  is  of  Moses,  but 
of  the  Fathers  y"1 — and  the  like  may  be  said  of  the  Sab- 
bath ;  that  Moses  gave  it,  and  yet  that  it  was  of  the 
Fathers.  And  surely  such  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
from  the  beginning  is  in  accordance  with  many  hints 
which  are  conveyed  to  us  of  some  distinction  or  other  be- 
longing to  that  day  from  the  beginning — as  when  Noah 
sends  forth  the  dove  three  times  successively  at  intervals  of 
seven  days :  as  when  Laban  invites  Jacob  to  "  fulfil  his 
week"  after  the  marriage  of  Leah ;  the  nuptial  festivities 
being  probably  terminated  by  the  arrival  of  the  Sabbath  :2 
as  when  Joseph  makes  a  mourning  for  his  father  of  seven 
days  ;3  the  lamentation  most  likely  ceasing  with  the  return 
of  that  festival :  these  and  other  hints  of  the  same  kind 
being,  as  appears  to  me,  pregnant  with  meaning,  and  in- 
tended to  be  so,  in  a  history  of  the  rapid  and  desultory 
nature  of  that  of  Moses.  Neither  is  there  much  difficulty 
in  the  passage  of  Ezekiel,4  with  which  those,  who  main- 
tain the  Sabbath  to  have  been  for  the  first  time  enjoined 
in  the  wilderness,  support  themselves.  "  Wherefore,"  says 
that  Prophet,  "  I  caused  them  to  go  forth  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  brought  (hem  into  the  wilderness — and  I 
gave  them  my  statutes,  and  showed  them  my  judgments, 
which  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  even  live  in  them — moreover 
also  I  gave  them  my  Sabbaths?  Here,  then,  it  is  alleged, 
Ezekiei  affirms,  or  seems  to  affirm,  that  the  Almighty  gave 
the  Israelites  his  Sabbaths  when  he  was  leading  them  out 
of  Egypt,  and  that  He  had  not  given  them  till  then.  Yet 
His  statutes  and  judgments  are  also  spoken  of  as  given 

i  John  vii.  22.  2  Gen.  xxix.  27. 

3  Ib.  1.  10.  *  Ezek.  xx.  10,  11,  12. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  27 

at  the  same  time,  whereas  very  many  of  those  had  surely 
been  given  long  before.  It  would  be  very  untrue  to  assert 
that,  until  the  Israelites  were  led  forth  from  Egypt,  no 
statutes  or  judgments  of  the  same  kind  had  been  ever 
given :  it  was  in  the  wilderness  that  the  law  respecting 
clean  and  unclean  beasts  was  promulgated,  yet  that  law 
had  certainly  been  published  long  before  j1  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  many  others,  which  I  will  not  enumerate 
here,  because  I  shall  have  occasion  to  do  it  by  and  by. 
My  argument,  then,  is  briefly  this : — that  as  Ezekiel  speaks 
of  statutes  and  judgments  given  to  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness,  some  of  which  were  certainly  old  statutes  and 
judgments  repeated  and  enforced,  so  when  he  says  that 
the  Sabbaths  were  given  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, 
he  cannot  be  fairly  accounted  to  assert  that  the  Sabbaths 
had  never  been  given  till  then.  The  fact  indeed  probably 
was,  that  they  had  been  neglected  and  half  forgotten  dur- 
ing the  long  bondage  in  Egypt,  (slavery  being  unfavorable 
to  morals,)  and  that  the  observance  of  them  was  re-as- 
serted and  renewed  at  the  time  of  the  promulgation  of  the 
Law  in  the  Desert.  In  this  sense,  therefore,  the  Prophet 
might  well  declare,  that  on  that  occasion  God  gave  the 
Israelites  his  Sabbaths.  It  is  true,  that  in  addition  to  the 
motive  for  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  (hinted  in  the 
2nd  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  more  fully  expressed  in  the 
"20th  of  Exodus,)  which  is  of  universal  obligation,  other 
motives  were  urged  upon  the  Israelites  specially  applicable 
to  them — as  that  "  the  day  should  be  a  sign  between 
God  and  them"2 — as  that  it  should  be  a  remembrance  of 
their  having  been  made  to  rest  from  the  yoke  of  the  Egyp- 
tians.3 Yet  such  supplementary  sanctions  to  the  per- 
formance of  a  duty  (however  well  adapted  to  secure  the 

i  Gen.  vii.  2.  2  Exod.  xxxi.  17.  3  Deut.  v.  15. 


28  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

obedience  of  the  Israelites)  are  quite  consistent  with  a  pre- 
vious command  addressed  to  all,  and  upon  a  principle 
binding  on  all.1 

I  have  now  attempted  to  show,  but  very  briefly,  lest 
otherwise  the  scope  of  my  argument  should  be  lost  sight  of, 
that  there  were  among  the  Patriarchs  places  set  apart  for 
worship — persons  to  officiate — a  decent  ceremonial — an 
appointed  season  for  holy  things — I  will  now  suggest  in 
very  few  words,  (still  gathering  my  information  from  such 
hints  as  the  Book  of  Genesis  supplies  from  time  to  time,) 
something  of  the  duties  and  doctrines  which  were  taught 
in  that  ancient  Church  :  and  here,  I  think  it  will  appear, 
that  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  of  the  next  Dispensation 
had  their  prototypes  in  that  of  the  Patriarchs — that  the 
Second  Temple  was  greater  indeed  in  glory  than  the  First, 
but  was  nevertheless  built  up  out  of  the  First,  the  one 
body  "  not  unclothed,"  but  the  other  rather  '•'  clothed  upon." 

6.  In  this  primitive  Church,  then,  the  distinction  of 
clean  and  unclean  is  already  known,  and  known  as  much 
in  detail  as  under  the  Levitical  Law,  every  animal  being 
arranged  by  Noah  in  one  class  or  the  other;2  and  the  clean 
being  exclusively  used  by  him  for  sacrifice.3  The  blood, 
which  is  the  life  of  the  animal,  is  already  withheld  as  food.4 
Murder  is  already  denounced  as  demanding  death  for  its 
punishment.5  Adultery  is  already  forbidden,  as  we  learn 
from  the  cases  of  Pharaoh  and  Abimelech,6  of  Reuben,7 
and  Joseph.8  Oaths  are  already  binding.9  Fornication  is 

1  Justin  Martyr,  it  is  true,  frequently  speaks  of  the  Patriarchs  as  observ- 
ing no  Sabbaths,  (See  e.  g.  Dial.  $  23 ;)  but  it  is  certain  that  his  meaning 
was,  that  the  Patriarchs  did  not  observe  the  Sabbaths  according  to  the  pe- 
culiar rites  of  the  Jewish  Law;  his  use  of  the  word  aa/3/3aTi$£tv  has  always  a 
reference  to  that  Law :  and  by  no  means  that  they  kept  no  Sabbaths  at  all. 
2  Gen.  vii.  2.  3  Ibid.  viii.  20. 

«  Ib.  ix.  4.  5  Ib.  ix.  6;  xlii.  22.  «  Ib.  xii.  18;  xxvi.  10. 

7  Ib.  xlix.  4.  8  Ib.  xxxix.  9.  »  Ib.  xxvi.  28. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  29 

already  condemned,  as  in  the  case  of  Shecbem,  who  is 
said  "  to  have  wrought  folly  in  Israel,  which  thing  ought 
not  to  be  done."1  Marriage  with  the  uncircumcised  or 
idolater  is  already  prohibited.2  A  curse  is  already  de- 
nounced on  him  that  setteth  light  by  his  father  or  his  mo 
ther.3  Purifications  are  already  enjoined  those  who 
approach  a  holy  place,  for  Jacob  bids  his  people  "be  clean 
and  change  their  garments"  before  they  present  themselves 
at  Bethel.4  The  brother  is  already  commanded  to  marry 
the  brother's  widow,  and  to  raise  up  seed  unto  his  brother.5 
The  daughter  of  the  Priest  (if  Judah  as  the  head  of  his 
own  family  maybe  considered  in  that  character,  is  already 
to  be  brought  forth  and  burned,  if  she  played  the  harlot.6 
These  laws,  afterwards  incorporated  in  the  Levitical,  are 
here  brought  together  and  reviewed  at  a  glance ;  but  as 
they  occur  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  be  it  remembered,  they 
drop  out  incidentally,  one  by  one,  as  the  course  of  the  nar- 
rative happens  to  turn  them  up.  They  are  therefore  to  be 
reckoned  fragments  of  a  more  full  and  complete  code  which 
was  the  groundwork  in  all  probability  of  the  Levitical  code 
itself;  for  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  where  there  were 
these  there  were  not  others  like  to  them.  But  this  is  not 
all — the  Patriarchs  had  their  sacrifices,  that  great  and 
leading  rite  of  the  Church  of  Aaron  ;  the  subjects  of  those 
sacrifices  fixed  ;  useless  without  the  shedding  of  blood  ;  for 
what  but  the  violation  of  an  express  command  full  of 
meaning,  could  have  constituted  the  sin  of  Cain  ?7  Their 
sacrifices,  how  far  regulated  in  their  details  by  the  injunc- 
tions of  God  himself,  we  cannot  determine  ;  yet  it  is  im- 

1  Gen.  xxxiv.  7. 

*  Ib.  xxxiv.  14,  and  comp.  Exod.  xxxiv.  16,  and  Dr.  Patrick's  Comment, 
3  Ib.  ix.  25,  and  comp.  Deut.  xxvii.  16.  *  Gen.  xxxv.  2. 

*  Ib.  xxxviii.  8.  e  Ib.  xxxviii.  24. 
i  Sea  Ib.  iii.  21  j  iv.  4,  5,  7. 

3* 


30  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    I, 

possible  to  read  in  the  15th  chapter  of  Genesis  the  particu- 
lars of  Abraham's  offering  of  the  heifer,  the  goat,  the  ram, 
the  turtle-dove,  and  the  pigeon — their  ages,  their  sex,  the 
circumspection  with  which  he  dissects  and  disposes  them — 
whether  all  this  be  done  in  act  or  in  vision,  without  feeling 
assured  that  very  minute  directions  upon  all  these  points 
were  vouchsafed  to  the  Patriarchal  Church.  She  had 
her  Sacraments  ;  for  sacrifice  of  which  I  have  just  been 
speaking,  was  one,  and  circumcision  was  the  other. 

Then  as  she  had  her  sacrifices  and  sacraments,  so  had 
she  her  types — types  which  in  number  scarcely  yield  to 
those  of  the  Levitical  Law,  in  precision  and  interest  per- 
haps exceed  them.  For  we  meet  with  them  in  the  names 
and  fortunes  of  individuals  whom  the  Almighty  Disposer 
of  events,  without  doing  violence  to  the  natural  order  of 
things,  exhibits  as  pages  of  a  living  book  in  which  the 
Promise  is  to  be  read — as  characters  expressing  His  coun- 
sels and  covenants  writ  by  His  own  finger — as  actors, 
whereby  he  holds  up  to  a  world,  not  yet  prepared  for  less 
gross  and  sensible  impressions,  scenes  to  come.  It  would 
lead  me  far  beyond  the  limits  of  my  argument  were  I  to 
touch  upon  the  multitude  of  instances,  which  will  crowd, 
however,  I  doubt  not,  upon  the  minds  of  my  readers.  I 
might  tell  of  Adam,  whom  St.  Paul  himself  calls  the  "fig- 
ure" or  type  "  of  Him  who  was  to  come."1  I  might  tell  of 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (though  not  altogether  after  him 
whose  vision  upon  this  subject,  always  bright  though  often 
baseless,  would  alone  have  immortalized  his  name) — of 
that  Isaac  whose  birth  was  preceded  by  an  annunciation 
to  his  mother2 — whose  conception  was  miraculous3 — who 
was  named  of  the  angel  before  he  was  conceived  in  the 
womb4,  and  Joy,  or  Laughter,  or  Rejoicing  was  that  name5 

1  Rom.  v.  14;  1  Cor.  xv.  45.  2  Gen.  xviii.  10. 

s  Gen.  xviii.  14.  <  Ib.  xvfi.  19.  5  Ih.  xxi,  6. 


PART   I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  31 

— who  was,  in  its  primary  sense,  the  seed  in  which  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed1 — whose  projected 
death  was  a  rehearsal  (as  it  were),  almost  two  thousand 
years  beforehand,  of  the  great  offering  of  all — the  very 
mountain,  Moriah,  not  chosen  by  chance,  not  chosen  for 
convenience,  for  it  was  three  days'  journey  from  Abraham's 
dwelling-place,  but  no  doubt  appointed  of  God  as  the  future 
scene  of  a  Saviour's  passion  too2 — a  son,  an  only  son  the 
victim — the  very  instruments  of  the  oblation,  the  wood, 
not  carried  by  the  young  men,  not  carried  by  the  ass  which 
they  had  brought  with  them,  but  laid  on  the  shoulders  of 
him  who  was  to  die,  as  the  cross  was  borne  up  that  same 
ascent  of  Him,  who,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  was  destined  to 
expire  upon  it.  But  indeed  I  see  the  Promise  all  Genesis 
through,  so  that  our  Lord  might  well  begin  with  Moses  in 
expounding  the  things  concerning  Himself;3  and  well 
might  Philip  say,  "  We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses 
in  the  Law  did  write."4  I  see  the  Promise  all  Genesis 
through,  and  if  I  have  constructed  a  rude  and  imperfect 
Temple  of  Patriarchal  Worship  out  of  the  fragments  which 
offer  themselves  to  our  hands  in  that  history,  the  Messiah 
to  come  is  the  spirit  that  must  fill  that  Temple  with  His 
all-pervading  presence,  none  other  than  He  must  be  the 
Shekinah  of  the  Tabernacle  we  have  reared.  For  I  con- 
fess myself  wholly  at  a  loss  to  explain  the  nature  of  that 
Book  on  any  other  principle,  or  to  unlock  its  mysteries  by 
any  other  key.  Couple  it  with  this  consideration,  and  I 
see  the  scheme  of  Revelation,  like  the  physical  scheme, 
proceeding  with  beautiful  uniformity — an  unity  of  plan 
connecting  (as  it  has  been  well  said  by  Paley)  the  chicken 
roosting  upon  its  perch  with  the  spheres  revolving  ill  the 


i  Gen.  xxh.  18.  *  Ib.  xxii.  2;  2  Chron.  iii.  1. 

3  Luke  xxiv.  27.  «  John  i.  45. 


«*^  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

firmament ;  and  an  unity  of  plan  connecting  in  like  man- 
ner the  meanest  accidents  of  a  household  with  the  most 
illustrious  visions  of  a  prophet.  Abstracted  from  this  con- 
sideration, I  see  in  it  details  of  actions,  some  trifling,  some 
even  offensive,  pursued  at  a  length  (when  compared  with 
the  whole)  singularly  disproportionate  ;  while  things  which 
the  angels  would  desire  to  look  into  are  passed  over  and 
forgotten.  But  this  principle  once  admitted,  and  all  is 
consecrated — all  assumes  a  new  aspect — trifles  that  seem 
at  first  not  bigger  than  a  man's  hand,  occupy  the  heavens; 
and  wherefore  Sarah  laughed,  for  instance,  at  the  prospect 
of  a  son,  and  wherefore  that  laugh  was  rendered  immortal 
in  his  name,  and  wherefore  the  sacred  historian  dwells  on 
a  matter  so  trivial,  whilst  the  world  and  its  vast  concerns 
were  lying  at  his  feet,  I  can  fully  understand.  For  then  I 
see  the  hand  of  God  shaping  everything  to  his  own  ends, 
and  in  an  event  thus  casual,  thus  easy,  thus  unimportant, 
telling  forth  his  mighty  design  of  Salvation  to  the  world, 
and  working  it  up  into  the  web  of  his  noble  prospective 
counsels.1  I  see  that  nothing  is  great  or  little  before  Him 
who  can  bend  to  his  purposes  whatever  He  willeth,  and 
convert  the  light-hearted  and  thoughtless  mockery  of  an 
aged  woman  into  an  instrument  of  his  glory,  effectual  as 
the  tongue  of  the  seer  which  He  touched  with  living  coals 
from  the  altar.  Bearing  this  master-key  in  my  hand,  I  can 
interpret  the  scenes  of  domestic  mirth,  of  domestic  strata- 
gem, or  of  domestic  wickedness,  with  which  the  history  of 
Moses  abounds.  The  Seed  of  the  Woman  which  was  to 
bruise  the  Serpent's  head,2  however  indistinctly  understood, 
(and  probably  it  was  understood  very  indistinctly,)  was 
the  one  thing  longed  for  in  the  families  of  old,  was  "  the 
desire  of  all  nations,"  as  the  Prophet  Haggai  expressly  calls 

i  Gen.  xxi.  6.  2  Gen.  iii.  15. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  33 

it;1  and  provided  they  could  accomplish  this  desire,  they 
(like  others  when  urged  by  an  overpwering  motive)  were 
often  reckless  of  the  means,  and  rushed  upon  deeds  which 
they  could  not  defend.  Then  did  the  wife  forget  her  jeal- 
ousy, and  provoke,  instead  of  resenting,  the  faithlessness 
of  her  husband  ;2  then  did  the  mother  forget  a  mother's 
part,  and  teach  her  own  child  treachery  and  deceit  ;3  then  did 
daughters  turn  the  instincts  of  nature  backward,  and  delib- 
erately work  their  own  and  their  fathers  shame  ;4  then  did 
the  daughter-in-law  veil  her  face,  and  court  the  incestuous 
bed  ;5  and  to  be  childless  was  to  be  a  bye-word  ;•  and  to 
refuse  to  raise  up  seed  to  a  brother  was  to  be  spit  upon  ;7 
and  the  prospect  of  the  Promise,  like  the  fulfilment  of  it, 
did  not  send  peace  into  families,  but  a  sword,  and  three 
were  set  against  two,  and  two  against  three  ;8  and  the  elder 
who  would  be  promoted  unto  honor,  was  set  against  the 
younger,  whom  God  would  promote,9  and  national  differ- 
ences were  engendered  by  it,  as  individuals  grew  into  na- 
tions ;10  and  even  the  foulest  of  idolatries  may  be  traced, 
perhaps,  to  this  hallowed  source ;  for  the  corruption  of  the 
best  is  the  worst  corruption  of  all.11  It  is  upon  this  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation,  and  I  know  not  upon  what  other 
so  well,  that  we  may  put  to  silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish 
men,  who  have  made  those  parts  of  the  Mosaic  History 
a  stumbling-block  to  many,  which,  if  rightly  understood, 
are  the  very  testimony  of  the  covenant ;  and  a  principle, 
which  is  thus  extensive  in  its  application  and  successful  in 
its  results,  which  explains  so  much  that  is  difficult,  and 
answers  so  much  that  is  objected  against,  has,  from  this 

1  Hag.  ii.  7.  2  Gen.  xvi.  2;  xxx.  3 ;  xxx.  9. 

3  Ib.  xxv.  23;  xxvii.  13.  *  Ib.  xix.  31.  5  Ib.  xxxviii.  14. 

«  Ib.  xvi.  5;  xxx.  1.  1  Ib.  xxxviii.  26;  Deut.  xxv.  9. 

8  Gen.  xxvii.  41.  9  Ib.  iv.  5 ;  xxvii.  41. 

w  Ib.  xix.  37;  xxvi.  35.  "  Numb.  XXY.  1,  2,  3. 


34  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I, 

circumstance  alone,  strong  presumption  in  its  favor,  strong 
claims  upon  our  sober  regard.1 

Such  is  the  structure  that  appears  to  me  to  unfold  itself, 
if  we  do  but  bring  together  the  scattered  materials  of 
which  it  is  composed.  The  place  of  worship — the  priest 
to  minister — the  sacerdotal  dress — the  ceremonial  forms 
— the  appointed  seasons  for  holy  things — preachers — 
prophets — a  code  of  laws — sacrifices — sacraments — types 
— and  a  Messiah  in  prospect,  as  leading  a  feature  of  the 
whole  scheme,  as  he  now  is  in  retrospect  of  a  scheme 
which  has  succeeded  it.  Complete  the  building  is  not,  but 
still  there  is  symmetry  in  its  component  parts,  and  unity 
in  its  whole.  Yet  Moses  was  certainly  not  contemplating 
any  description  of  a  Patriarchal  Church.  He  had  other 
matters  in  his  thoughts :  he  was  the  mediator  not  of  this 
system,  but  of  another,  which  he  was  now  to  set  forth  in 
all  its  details,  even  of  the  Levitical.  Hints,  however,  of 
a  former  dispensation  he  does  inadvertently  let  fall,  and 
these  we  find,  on  collecting  and  comparing  them,  to  be,  as 
far  as  they  go,  harmonious. 

Upon  this  general  view  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  then, 
I  found  my  first  proof  of  consistency  without  design  in 
the  writings  of  Moses,  and  my  first  argument  for  their 
veracity — for  such  consistency  is  too  uniform  to  be  acci- 
dentalj  and  too  unobtrusive  to  have  been  studied.  Such 
a  view  is,  doubtless,  important  as  far  as  regards  the  doc- 
trines of  Scripture ;  I,  however,  only  urge  it  as  far  as  re- 
gards the  evidences.  I  shall  now  enter  more  into  detail, 
and  bring  forward  such  specific  coincidences  amongst  in- 
dependent passages  of  the  Mosaic  writings,  as  tend  to  prove 
that  in  them  we  have  the  Word  of  Truth,  that  in  them  we 
may  put  our  trust  with  faith  unfeigned. 

i  See  Allix,  "  Reflections  on  the  Books  of  Holy  Scripture,"  where  this 
interesting  subject  is  most  ingeniously  pursued. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  35 


II. 


IN  the  18th  chapter  of  Genesis  we  find  recorded  a  very 
singular  conversation  which  Abraham  is  reported  to  have 
held  with  a  superior  Being,  there  called  the  Lord.  It 
pleased  God  on  this  occasion  to  communicate  to  the  Father 
of  the  Faithful  his  intention  to  destroy  forthwith  the  cities 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  of  which  the  cry  was  great,  and 
the  sin  very  grievous.  Now  the  manner  in  which  Abra- 
ham is  said  to  have  received  the  sad  tidings,  is  remarkable. 
He  does  not  bow  to  the  high  behest  in  helpless  acquies- 
cence— the  Lord  do  what  seemeth  good  in  his  sight — but, 
with  feelings  at  once  excited  to  the  uttermost,  he  pleads 
for  the  guilty  city,  he  implores  the  Lord  not  to  slay  the 
righteous  with  the  wicked ;  and  when  he  feels  himself 
permitted  to  speak  with  all  boldness,  he  first  entreats  that 
fifty  good  men  may  purchase  the  city's  safety,  and,  still  en- 
couraged by  the  success  of  a  series  of  petitions,  he  rises  in 
his  merciful  demands,  till  at  last  it  is  promised  that  even 
if  ten  should  be  found  in  it,  it  should  not  be  destroyed  for 
ten's  sake. 

Now  was  there  no  motive  beyond  that  of  general  hu- 
manity which  urged  Abraham  to  entreaties  so  importu- 
nate, so  reiterated  ?  None  is  named — perhaps  such  gen- 
eral motive  will  be  thought  enough — I  do  not  say  that  it 
was  not ;  yet  I  think  we  may  discover  a  special  and  ap- 
propriate one,  which  was  likely  to  act  upon  ihe  mind  of 
Abraham  with  still  greater  effect,  though  we  are  left  en- 
tirely to  detect  it  for  ourselves.  For  may  we  not  imagine, 
that  no  sooner  was  the  intelligence  sounded  in  Abraham's 
ears,  than  he  called  to  mind  that  Lot  his  nephew,  with  all 
his  f amity,  was  dwelling  in  this  accursed  town,1  and  that 
i  Gen.  xiv.  12. 


36  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  I, 

this  consideration  both  prompted  and  quickened  his  prayer  ? 
For  while  he  thus  made  his  supplication  for  Sodom,  I  do 
not  read  that  Gomorrah  and  the  other  cities  of  the  plain1 
shared  his  intercession,  though  they  stood  in  the  same  need 
of  it — and  why  not  ?  except  that  in  them  he  had  not  the 
same  deep  interest.  It  may  be  argued  too,  and  without 
any  undue  refinement,  that  in  his  repeated  reduction  of 
the  number  which  was  to  save  the  place,  he  was  governed 
by  the  hope  that  the  single  family  of  Lot  (for  he  had  sons- 
in-law  who  had  married  his  daughters,  and  daughters  un- 
married, and  servants,)  would  in  itself  have  supplied  so 
many  individuals  at  least  as  would  fulfil  the  last  condition 
— ten  righteous  persons  who  might  turn  away  the  wrath 
of  God,  nor  suffer  his  whole  displeasure  to  arise. 

Surely  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  that  anxiety 
for  the  welfare  of  relatives  so  near  to  him  should  be  felt 
by  Abraham — nothing  more  natural  than  that  he  should 
make  an  effort  for  their  escape,  as  he  had  done  on  a  former 
occasion  at  his  own  risk,  when  he  rescued  this  very  Lot 
from  the  kings  who  had  taken  him  captive — nothing  more 
natural  than  that  his  family  feelings  should  discover  them- 
selves in  the  earnestness  of  his  entreaties — yet  we  have  to 
collect  all  this  for  ourselves.  The  whole  chapter  might  be 
read  without  our  gathering  from  it  a  single  hint  that  he 
had  any  relative  within  ten  days'  journey  of  the  place. 
All  we  know  is,  that  Abraham  entreated  for  it  with  great 
passion — that  he  entreated  for  no  other  place,  though  others 
were  in  the  same  peril — that  he  endeavored  to  obtain  such 
terms  as  seemed  likely  to  be  fulfilled  if  a  single  righteous 
family  could  be  found  there.  And  then  we  know,  from 
what  is  elsewhere  disclosed,  that  the  family  of  Lot  did  ac- 
tually dwell  there  at  that  time,  a  family  that  Abraham 

i  Gen.  xix.  28;  Jude,  7. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  37 

might  well  have  reckoned  on  being  more  prolific  in  virtue 
than  it  proved. 

Surely,  then,  a  coincidence  between  the  zeal  of  the  uncle 
and  the  danger  of  the  brother's  son  is  here  detailed,  though 
it  is  not  expressed ;  and  so  utterly  undesigned  is  this  coin- 
cidence, that  the  history  might  be  read  many  times  over, 
and  this  feature  of  truth  in  it  never  happen  to  present 
itself. 

And  here  let  me  observe,  (an  observation  which  will  be 
very  often  forced  upon  our  notice  in  the  prosecution  of  this 
argument,)  that  this  sign  of  truth  (whatever  may  be  the 
importance  attached  to  it),  offers  itself  in  the  midst  of  an 
incident  in  a  great  measure  miraculous :  and  though  it 
cannot  be  said  that  such  indications  of  veracity  in  the  nat- 
ural parts  of  a  story,  prove  those  parts  of  it  to  be  true 
which  are  supernatural;  yet  where  the  natural  and 
supernatural  are  in  close  combination,  the  truth  of  the 
former  must  at  least  be  thought  to  add  to  the  credibility 
of  the  latter ;  and  they  who  are  disposed  to  believe,  from 
-the  coincidence  in  question,  that  the  petition  of  Abraham 
in  behalf  of  Sodom  was  a  real  petition,  as  it  is  described 
by  Moses,  and  no  fiction,  will  have  some  difficulty  in 
separating  it  from  the  miraculous  circumstances  connected 
with  it — the  visit  of  the  angel — the  prophetic  information 
he  conveyed — and  the  terrible  vengeance  with  which  he 
was  proceeding  to  smite  that  adulterous  and  sinful  genera- 
tion. 

III. 

THE  24th  chapter  of  Genesis  contains  a  very  beautiful 
aad  primitive  picture  of  Eastern  manners,  in  the  mission 
of  Abraham's  trusty  servant  to  Mesopotamia,  to  procure  a 
wife  for  Isaac  from  the  daughters  of  that  branch  of  the 

4 


38  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

Patriarch's  family  which  continued  to  dwell  in  Haran. 
He  came  nigh  to  the  city  of  Nahor — it  was  the  hour  when 
the  people  were  going  to  draw  water.  He  entreated  God 
to  give  him  a  token  whereby  he  might  know  which  of  the 
damsels  of  the  place  he  had  appointed  to  Isaac  for  a  wife. 
"  And  it  came  to  pass  that  behold  Rebekah  came  out,  who 
was  born  to  Bethuel,  son  of  Milcah,  the  wife  of  Nahor, 
Abraham's  brother,  with  her  pitcher  upon  her  shoulder." 
— "  Drink,  my  lord,"  was  her  greeting,  "  and  I  will  draw 
water  for  thy  camels  also."  This  was  the  simple  token 
which  the  servant  had  sought  at  the  hands  of  God ;  and 
accordingly  he  proceeds  to  impart  his  commission  to  her- 
self and  her  friends.  To  read  is  to  believe  this  story. 
But  the  point  in  it  to  which  I  beg  the  attention  of  my 
readers  is  this,  that  Rebekah  is  said  to  be,  "  the  daughter 
of  Bethuel,  the  son  of  Milcah  which  she  bare  unto  Nahor" 
It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  grand-daughter  of  Abra- 
ham's brother  is  to  be  the  wife  of  Abraham's  son — i.e.  th£t 
a  person  of  the  third  generation  on  Nahor's  side  is  found 
of  suitable  years  for  one  of  the  second  generation  on  Abra- 
ham's side.  Now  what  could  harmonize  more  remarkably 
with  a  fact  elsewhere  asserted,  though  here  not  even 
touched  upon,  that  Sarah  the  wife  of  Abraham  was  for  a 
long  time  barren,  and  had  no  child  till  she  was  stricken 
in  years  ?l  Thus  it  was  that  a  generation  on  Abraham's 
side  was  lost,  and  the  grand-children  of  his  brother  in 
Haran  were  the  co-evals  of  his  own  child  in  Canaan.  I 
must  say  that  this  trifling  instance  of  minute  consistency 
gives  me  very  great  confidence  in  the  veracity  of  the  his- 
torian. It  is  an  incidental  point  in  the  narrative — most 
easily  overlooked — I  am  free  to  confess,  never  observed  by 
myself  till  I  examined  the  Pentateuch  with  a  view  to  this 

i  Gen.  xviii.  12. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  39 

species  of  internal  evidence.  It  is  a  point  on  which  he 
might  have  spoken  differently,  and  yet  not  have  excited 
the  smallest  suspicion  that  he  was  speaking  inaccurately. 
Suppose  he  had  said  that  Abraham's  son  had  taken  for 
a  wife  the  daughter  of  Nahor,  instead  of  the  grand- 
daughter, who  would  have  seen  in  this  anything  im- 
probable ?  and  to  a  mere  inventor  would  not  that  alli- 
ance have  been  much  the  more  likely  to  suggest  itself? 

Now  here,  again,  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  are  so 
closely  united,  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  indeed  to  put 
them  asunder.  If,  then,  the  ordinary  circumstances  of 
the  narrative  have  the  impress  of  truth,  the  extraordinary 
have  a  very  valid  right  to  challenge  our  serious  considera- 
tion too.  If  the  coincidence  almost  establishes  this  as  a 
certain  fact,  which  I  think  it  does,  that  Sarah  did  not  bear 
Isaac  while  she  was  young,  agreeably  to  what  Moses  af- 
firms ;  is  it  not  probable  that  the  same  historian  is  telling 
the  truth  when  he  says,  that  Isaac  was  born  when  Sarah 
was  too  old  to  bare  him  at  all  except  by  miracle? — when 
he  says,  that  the  Lord  announced  his  future  birth,  and 
ushered  him  into  the  world  by  giving  him  a  name  fore- 
telling the  joy  he  should  be  to  the  nations  ;  changing  the 
names  of  both  his  parents  with  a  prophetic  reference  to 
the  high  destinies  this  son  was  appointed  to  fulfil  ? 

Indeed  the  more  attentively  and  scrupulously  we  ex- 
amine the  Scriptures,  the  more  shall  we  be  (in  rny  opinion) 
convinced,  that  the  natural  and  supernatural  events  re- 
corded in  them  must  stand  or  fall  together.  The  spirit 
of  miracles  possesses  the  entire  body  of  the  Bible,  and  can- 
not be  cast  out  without  rending  in  pieces  the  whole  frame 
of  the  h'story  itself,  merely  considered  as  a  history. 


40  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 


IV. 


THERE  is  another  indication  of  truth  in  this  same 
portion  of  patriarchal  story.  It  is  this — The  consistent 
insignificance  of  Bethuel  in  this  whole  affair.  Yet  he 
was  alive,  and  as  the  father  of  Rebekah  was  likely,  it 
might  have  been  thought,  to  have  been  a  conspicuous 
person  in  this  contract  of  his  daughter's  marriage.  For 
there  was  nothing  in  the  custom  of  the  country  to  warrant 
the  apparent  indifference  in  the  party  most  nearly  con- 
cerned, which  we  observe  in  Bethuel.  Laban  was  of  the 
same  country  and  placed  in  circumstances  somewhat  simi- 
lar ;  he  too  had  to  dispose  of  a  daughter  in  marriage,  and 
that  daughter  also,  like  Rebekah,  had  brothers  j1  yet  in 
this  case  the  terms  of  the  contract  were  stipulated,  as  was 
reasonable,  by  the  father  alone  ;  he  was  the  active  person 
throughout.  But  mark  the  difference  in  the  instance  of 
Bethuel — whether  he  was  incapable  from  years  or  imbecil- 
ity to  manage  his  own  affairs,  it  is  of  course  impossible  to 
say,  but  something  of  this  kind  seems  to  be  implied  in  all 
that  relates  to  him.  Thus,  when  Abraham's  servant  meets 
with  Rebekah  at  the  well,  he  inquires  of  her,  "whose 
daughter  art  thou  ;  tell  me,  I  pray  thee,  is  there  room  in 
thy  father's  house  for  us  to  lodge  in?"2  She  answers,  that 
she  is  the  daughter  of  Bethuel,  and  that  there  is  room  ; 
and  when  he  thereupon  declared  who  he  wras  and  whence 
he  came,  "  the  damsel  ran  and  told  them  of  her  mother's 
house  "  (not  of  her  father's  house,  as  Rachel  did  when 
Jacob  introduced  himself,)3  "these  things."  This  might 
be  accident;  but  "Rebekah  had  a  brother"  the  history 
continues,  and  "  his  name  was  Laban,  and  Laban  ran 

i  Gen.  xxxi.  1,  2  fl>.  xxiv.  23,  3  ib.  xxu.  12. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  41 

out  unto  the  man"  and  invited  him  in.1  Still  we  have  no 
mention  of  Bethuel.  The  servant  now  explains  the  na- 
ture of  his  errand,  and  in  this  instance  it  is  said,  that 
Laban  and  Bethuel  answered  ;2  Bethuel  being  here  in  this 
passage,  which  constitutes  the  sole  proof  of  his  being  alive, 
coupled  with  his  son  as  the  spokesman.  It  is  agreed,  that 
she  shall  go  with  the  man,  and  he  now  makes  his  pres- 
ents, but  to  whom  ?  "  Jewels  of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold, 
and  raiment,  he  gave  to  Rebekah."  He  also  gave,  we  are 
told,  "  to  her  brother  and  to  her  mother  precious  things  ;''8 
but  not  it  seems  to  her  father ;  still  Bethuel  is  overlooked, 
and  he  alone.  It  is  proposed  that  she  shall  tarry  a  few 
days  before  she  departs.  And  by  whom  is  this  proposal 
made  ?  Not  by  her  father,  the  most  natural  person  surely 
to  have  been  the  principal  throughout  this  whole  affair ; 
but  "  by  her  brother  and  her  mother"*  In  the  next  gen- 
eration, when  Jacob,  the  fruit  of  this  marriage,  flies  to  his 
mother's  country  at  the  counsel  of  Rebekah  to  hide  him- 
self from  the  anger  of  Esau,  and  to  procure  for  himself 
a  wife,  and  when  he  comes  to  Haran  and  inquires  of  the 
shepherds  after  his  kindred  in  that  place,  how  does  he  ex- 
press himself?  "Know  ye,"  says  he,  "  Laban  the  son  of 
Nahor  T's  This  is  more  marked  than  even  the  former 
instances,  for  Laban  was  the  son  of  Bethuel,  and  only  the 
grandson  of  Nahor  ;  yet  still  we  see  Bethuel  is  passed 
over  as  a  person  of  no  note  in  his  own  family,  and  Laban 
his  own  child  designated  by  the  title  of  his  grandfather, 
instead  of  his  father. 

This  is  consistent — and  the  consistency  is  too  much  of 
one  piece  throughout,  and  marked  by  too  many  particu- 
lars, to  be  accidental.  It  is  the  consistency  of  a  man  who 
knew  more  about  Bethuel  than  we  do,  or  than  he  hap- 

»  Gen.  xxiv.  29.  2  ib.  xxiv.  50.  3  ib.  xxiv.  53. 

4  Ib.  xxiv.  55.  s  ib.  xxix.  5. 

4* 


42  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

pened  to  let  drop  from  his  pen.  It  is  of  a  kind,  perhaps, 
the  most  satisfactory  of  all  for  the  purpose  I  use  it.  because 
the  least  liable  to  suspicion  of  all.  The  uniformity  of  ex- 
pressive silence — repeated  omissions  that  have  a  meaning 
— no  agreement  in  a  positive  fact,  for  nothing  is  asserted ; 
yet  a  presumption  of  the  fact  conveyed  by  mere  negative 
evidence.  It  is  like  the  death  of  Joseph  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  none  of  the  Evangelists  affirm  to  have 
taken  place  before  the  Crucifixion,  though  all  imply  it. 
This  kind  of  consistency  I  look  upon  as  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  most  subtle  contriver  in  the  world. 


V. 


ON  the  return  of  this  servant  of  Abraham,  his  embassy 
fulfilled,  and  Rebekah  in  his  company,  he  discovers  Isaac 
at  a  distance,  who  was  gone  out  (as  our  translation  has  it) 
"  to  meditate"  or  (as  the  margin  has  it)  "  to  pray  in  the 
field  at  eventide."1 

Now  in  this  subordinate  incident  in  the  narrative  there 
are  marks  of  truth,  (very  slight  indeed  it  may  be,)  but 
still,  I  think,  if  not  obvious,  not  difficult  to  be  perceived 
and  not  unworthy  to  be  mentioned.  Isaac  went  out  to 
meditate  or  to  pray — but  the  Hebrew  word  does  not  relate 
to  religious  meditation  exclusively,  still  less  exclusively 
to  direct  prayer.  Neither  does  the  corresponding  expres- 
sion in  the  Septuagint  (fiJofoo-^crai)  convey  either  of  these 
senses  exclusively,  the  latter  of  the  two  perhaps  not  at  all. 
The  leading  idea  suggested  seems  to  be  an  anxious,  a 
reverential,  a  painful,  a  depressed  state  of  mind — "  out  of 
the  abundance  of  my  complaint"  (or  meditation,  for  the 

i  Gen.  xxiv.  63, 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  43 

word  is  the  same  here,  only  in  the  form  of  a  substantive,) 
"  out  of  the  abundance  of  my  meditation  and  grief  have 
I  spoken,"  are  the  words  of  Hannah  to  Eli.1  "  Who  hath 
woe,  who  hath  sorrow,  who  hath  contentions,  who  hath 
babbling,  (the  word  is  here  still  the  same  and  evidently 
might  be  rendered  with  more  propriety  melancholy,)  who 
hath  wounds  without  cause,  who  hath  redness  of  eyes  ?"2 
Isaac  therefore  went  out  into  the  field  not  directly  to  pray, 
but  to  give  ease  to  a  wounded  spirit  in  solitude.  Now 
the  occasion  of  this  his  trouble  of  mind  is  not  pointed  out, 
and  the  passage  indeed  has  been  usually  explained  with- 
out any  reference  to  such  a  feeling,  and  merely  as  an  in- 
stance of  religious  contemplation  in  Isaac  worthy  of  imita- 
tion by  all.  But  one  of  the  last  things  that  is  recorded  tc 
have  happened  before  the  servant  went  to  Haran,  whence 
he  was  now  returning,  is  the  death  and  burial  of  Sarah, 
no  doubt  a  tender  mother  (as  she  proved  herself  a  jealous 
one),  to  the  child  of  her  old  age  and  her  only  child.  What 
more  likely  than  that  her  loss  was  the  subject  of  Isaac's 
mournful  meditation  on  this  occasion  ?  But  this  conjec- 
ture is  reduced  almost  to  certainty  by  a  few  words  inciden- 
tally dropped  at  the  end  of  the  chapter ;  for  having  lifted 
up  his  eyes  and  beheld  the  camels  coming,  and  the  ser- 
vant, and  the  maiden,  Isaac  "  brought  her  into  his  mother 
Sarah's  tent,  and  took  Rebekah  and  she  became  his  wife ; 
and  he  loved  her,  and  was  comforted  after  his  mother's 
death."* 

The  agreement  of  this  latter  incident  with  what  had 
gone  before  is  not  set  forth  in  our  version,  and  a  scene  of 
very  touching  and  picturesque  beauty  impaired,  if  not 
destroyed. 

1  1  Sam.  i.  16.  «  Prov.  xxiii.  29.  3  Gen.  xxiv.  67. 


44  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

VI. 

WE  have  now  to  contemplate  Isaac  in  a  different  scene, 
and  to  remove  with  him  (after  the  fashion  of  this  earthly 
pilgrimage),  from  an  occasion  of  mirth  to  one  of  mourn- 
ing. 

Being  now  grown  old,  as  he  says,  and  "  not  knowing 
the  day  of  his  death"  he  prepares  to  bless  his  first-born 
son  "before  he  dies"1  So  spake  the  Patriarch.  This 
looks  very  like  one  of  the  last  acts  of  a  life  which  time 
and  natural  decay  had  brought  near  its  close  ;  yet  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Isaac  continued  to  live  a  great  many  years  after 
this,  nay,  that  probably  a  fourth  part  of  his  whole  life  yet 
remained  to  him — for  he  was  still  alive  when  Jacob  re- 
turned from  Mesopotamia ;  when  even  many  of  Jacob's  sons 
were  grown  up  to  manhood  who  were  as  yet  in  the  loins 
of  their  father  ;2  and  even  after  that  Patriarch  had  re- 
peatedly migrated  from  dwelling-place  to  dwelling-place  in 
the  land  of  Canaan.  For  "  Jacob,"  we  read  when  all  these 
other  events  had  been  related  in  their  order,  "  came  unto 
Isaac  his  father,  unto  Mamre,  unto  the  city  of  Arbah, 
which  is  Hebron,  where  Abraham  and  Isaac  sojourned.3" 

How  then  is  this  seeming  discrepancy  to  be  got  over  ? 
I  mean,  the  discrepancy  between  Isaac's  anxiety  to  bless 
his  son  before  he  died,  and  the  fact  of  his  being  found 
alive  perhaps  forty  or  fifty  years  afterwards  ?  My  answer 
is  this — that  it  wras  probably  at  a  moment  of  dangerous 
sickness  when  he  bethought  himself  of  imparting  the 
blessing — and  I  feel  my  conjecture  supported  by  the  fol- 
lowing minute  coincidences.  That  Isaac  was  then  de- 
sirous to  have  "  savory  meat  such  as  he  loved,"  as  though 
he  loathed  his  ordinary  food  :  that  Jacob  bade  him  "  arise 

i  Gen.  xxvii.  2,  4.  2  Ib.  xxxiv.  5.  3  Ib.  xxxv.  27. 


PART    I.  T300KS    OF    MOSES.  45 

and  sit  that  he  might  eat  of  his  venison,"  as  though  he 
was  at  the  time  stretched  upon  his  bed  ;  that  he  "  trembled 
very  exceedingly"  when  Esau  came  in  and  he  was  ap- 
prised of  his  mistake,  as  though  he  was  very  weak ;  that 
the  words  of  Esau,  when  he  said  in  his  heart  "  the  days 
of  mourning  for  my  father  are  at  hand,"  are  as  though 
he  was  thought  sick  unto  death ;  and  that  those  of  Re- 
bekah,  when  she  said  unto  Jacob  "  should  I  be  deprived 
of  you  both  in  one  day,"  are  as  though  she  supposed  the 
time  of  her  widowhood  to  be  near. 

I  will  add  that  the  prolongation  of  Isaac's  life  unex- 
pectedly (as  it  should  seem),  may  have  had  its  influence 
in  the  continued  protection  of  Jacob  from  Esau's  anger, 
the  latter,  even  in  the  first  burst  of  his  passion,  retaining 
that  reverence  for  his  father  which  determined  him  to  put 
off  the  execution  of  his  evil  purposes  against  Jacob,  till  he 
should  be  no  more.  And  this  affection  seems  to  have  been 
felt  by  him  to  the  last ;  for  wild  and  wandering  as  was 
his  life,  the  sword  or  the  bow  ever  in  his  hand,  we  never- 
theless find  him  anxious  to  do  honor  to  his  father's  grave, 
and  assisting  Jacob  at  the  burial.1  The  filial  feelings 
therefore  which  had  stayed  his  hand  at  first,  were  still 
tending  to  soothe  him  during  Jacob's  absence,  and  to  pro- 
pitiate him  on  Jacob's  return ;  for  the  days  of  mourning 
for  his  father  were  still  not  come. 


VII. 

MY  next  coincidence  may  not  be  thought  in  itself  so 
convincing  as  some  others,  yet  as  it  at  once  furnishes  an 
argument  for  the  truth  of  Genesis  and  an  answer  to  an 

i  Gen.  xxxv.  29. 


46  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    I. 

objection,  I  will  not  pass  it  over.  When  Jacob  is  about  to 
remove  with  his  family  to  Beth-el,  a  place  already  conse- 
crated in  his  memory  by  the  vision  of  angels,  and  thence- 
forward to  be  distinguished  by  an  altar  to  his  God,  he  gives 
the  following  extraordinary  command  to  his  household  and 
all  that  are  with  him  :  "  Put  away  the  strange  gods  that 
are  among  you,  and  be  clean,  and  change  your  garments  ;'n 
or  as  it  might  be  translated  with  perhaps  more  closeness, 
" the  gods  of  the  stranger"  Had  Jacob,  then,  hitherto 
tolerated  the  worship  of  idols  among  his  attendants  ? 
Had  he  connived  so  long  at  a  defection  from  the  God  of 
his  fathers,  even  whilst  he  was  befriended  by  Him,  whilst 
he  was  living  under  his  special  protection,  whilst  he  was  in 
frequent  communication  with  Him  ?  This  is  hard  to  be 
believed ;  indeed  it  would  have  seemed  incredible  altogether. 
had  it  not  been  remembered  that  Rachel  had  Images 
which  she  stole  from  her  father  Laban,  and  which  he  at 
least  considered  as  his  household  gods.  Those  images, 
however,  might  be  taken  by  Rachel  as  valuables,  silver  Or 
gold  perhaps,  a  fair  prize  as  she  might  think,  serving  to  bal- 
ance the  portion  which  Laban  had  withheld  from  her,  and 
/he  money  which  he  had  devoured.  That  she  used  them 
herself  as  idols  does  not  appear,  but  rather  the  contrary — 
and  that  Jacob  was  perfectly  unconscious  of  their  being 
at  all  in  his  camp,  whether  as  objects  of  worship  or  as  ob- 
jects of  value,  is  evident  from  his  giving  Laban  free  leave 
to  put  to  death  the  party  on  whom  they  should  be  found.2 
He  therefore  was  not  an  idolater  himself;  nor,  as  far  as 
we  know,  did  he  wink  at  idolatry  in  those  about  him. 
Whence  then  this  command,,  issued  to  his  attendants  on 
their  approach  to  Beth-el,  that  holy  ground,  "  to  put  away 
the  strange  gods  that  were  amongst  them,  and  to  make 
themselves  clean  ?" 

i  Gen  xxxv.  2.  *  ibid.  xxxi.  32. 


PART  I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  47 

Let  us  only  refer  to  an  event  of  a  former  chapter,1  and 
all  is  plain.  The  sons  of  Jacob  had  just  been  destroying 
the  city  of  the  Shechemites — they  had  slain  the  males,  but 
"  all  their  wealth,  and  all  their  little  ones,  and  their  wives 
took  they  captive,  and  spoiled  all  that  was  in  the  house." 
These  captives,  then,  so  lately  added  to  the  company  of 
Jacob,  were  in  all  probability  the  strangers  alluded  to, 
and  the  idols  in  their  possession  the  gods  of  the  strangers^ 
which  accordingly  the  Patriarch  required  them  to  put 
away  forthwith  before  Beth-el  was  approached.  Moreover, 
it  may  be  observed,  that  the  terms  of  the  command  extend 
to  "  all  that  were  with  him"  which  may  well  have  respect 
to  the  recent  augmentation  of  his  numbers,  by  the  addition 
of  the  Shechemite  prisoners  :  and  the  further  injunction, 
that  not  only  the  idols  were  to  be  put  away,  but  that  all 
were  to  be  clean  and  change  their  garments,  may  have 
a  like  respect  to  the  recent  slaughter  of  that  people,  whereby 
all  who  were  concerned  in  it  were  polluted. 

Yet  surely  nothing  can  be  more  incidental  than  the  con- 
nection between  the  sacking  of  the  city,  and  the  subse- 
quent command  to  put  the  idols  of  the  stranger  away — 
though  nothing  can  be  more  natural  and  satisfactory  than 
that  connection  when  it  is  once  perceived.  Indeed  so  little 
solicitous  is  Moses  to  point  out  these  two  events  as  cause 
and  consequence,  that  he  has  left  himself  open  to  miscon- 
struction by  the  very  unguarded  and  artless  manner  in 
which  he  expresses  himself,  and  has  even  placed  the  char- 
acter of  Jacob,  as  an  exclusive  worshipper  of  the  true  God, 
unintentionally  in  jeopardy. 

1  Gen.  miv. 


48  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 


VIII. 

IN  the  character  of  Jocob  I  see  an  individuality  which 
marks  it  to  belong  to  real  life :  and  this  is  my  next  argu- 
ment for  the  veracity  of  the  writings  of  Moses.  The  par- 
ticulars we  read  of  him  are  consistent  with  each  other,  and 
with  the  lot  to  which  he  was  born  ;  for  this  more  or  less 
models  the  character  of  every  man.  The  lot  of  Jacob  had 
not  fallen  upon  the  fairest  of  grounds.  Life,  especially  the 
former  part  of  it,  did  not  run  so  smoothly  with  him  as  with 
his  father  Isaac — so  that  he  might  be  tempted  to  say  to 
Pharaoh  towards  the  close  of  it  naturally  enough,  that 
"  the  days  of  the  years  of  it  had  been  evil."  The  faults  of 
his  youth  had  been  visited  upon  his  manhood  with  retrib- 
utive justice  not  unfrequent  in  God's  moral  government  of 
the  world,  where  the  very  sin  by  which  a  man  offends  is 
made  the  rod  by  which  he  is  corrected.  Rebekah's  undue 
partiality  for  her  younger  son,  which  leads  her  to  deal  cun- 
ningly for  his  promotion  unto  honor,  works  for  her  the 
loss  of  that  son  for  the  remainder  of  her  days — his  own 
unjust  attempts  at  gaming  the  superiority  over  his  elder 
brother,  entail  upon  him  twenty  years  slavery  in  a  foreign 
land — and  the  arts  by  which  he  had  made  Esau  to  suffer, 
are  precisely  those  by  which  he  suffers  himself  at  the  hands 
of  Laban.  Of  this  man,  the  first  thing  we  hear  is,  his 
entertainment  of  Abraham's  servant  when  he  came  on  his 
errand  to  Rebekah.  Hospitality  was  the  virtue  of  his  age 
and  country  ;  in  his  case,  however,  it  seems  to  have  been 
no  little  stimulated  by  the  sight  of  "  the  earring  and  the 
bracelets  on  his  sister's  hands,"  which  the  servant  had 
already  given  her1 — so  he  speedily  made  room  for  the 

i  Gen.  xxiv.  30. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  49 

camels.  He  next  is  presented  to  us  as  beguiling  that  sis- 
ter's son,  who  had  sought  a  shelter  in  his  house,  and  whose 
circumstances  placed  him  at  his  mercy,  of  fourteen  years 
service,  when  he  had  covenanted  with  him  for  seven  only — 
endeavoring  to  retain  his  labor  when  he  would  not  pay 
him  his  labor's  worth — himself  devouring  the  portion  which 
he  should  have  given  to  his  daughters,  counting  them  but 
as  strangers.1  Compelled  at  length  to  pay  Jacob  wages, 
he  changes  them  ten  times,  and  in  the  spirit  of  a  crafty 
griping  worldling,  makes  him  account  for  whatever  of  the 
flock  was  torn  of  beasts  or  stolen,  whether  by  day  or  night. 
When  Jacob  flies  from  this  iniquitous  service  with  his  fam- 
ily and  cattle,  Laban  still  pursues  and  persecutes  him,  in- 
tending, if  his  intentions  had  not  been  over-ruled  by  a 
mightier  hand,  to  send  him  away  empty,  even  after  he 
had  been  making,  for  so  long  a  period,  so  usurious  a  profit 
of  him. 

I  think  it  was  to  be  expected,  that  one  who  had  been 
disciplined  in  such  a  school  as  this,  and  for  such  a  season, 
would  not  come  out  of  it  without  bearing  about  him  its 
marks ;  and  that  oppressed  first  by  the  just  fury  of  his 
brother,  which  put  his  life  in  hazard,  and  drove  him  into 
exile,  and  then  still  more  by  the  continued  tyranny  of  a 
father-in-law,  such  as  we  have  seen,  Jacob  should  have 
learned,  like  maltreated  animals,  to  have  the  fear  of  man 
habitually  before  his  eyes.  Now  that  it  was  so,  is  evident 
from  all  the  latter  part  of  his  history. 

He  is  afraid  that  Laban  will  not  let  him  go,  and  there- 
fore takes  the  precaution  to  steal  from  him  unawares, 
when  he  is  gone  to  a  distance  to  shear  his  sheep.  He  ap- 
proaches the  borders  of  Edom,  but  here  the  ancient  dread 
of  his  brother  revives,  and  he  takes  the  precaution  to  pro- 

i  Gen.  xixi.  15. 

5 


50  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

pitiate  him  or  to  escape  him  by  measures  which  breathe 
the  spirit  of  the  man  in  a  singular  manner.  He  sends 
him  a  message — it  is  from  "  Jacob  thy  servant"  to  "  Esau 
my  lord."  Esau  advances,  and  he  at  once  fears  the  worst. 
Then  does  he  divide  his  people  and  substance  into  two 
bands,  that  if  the  one  be  smitten,  the  other  may  escape — 
he  provides  a  present  of  many  cattle  for  his  brother — he 
commands  his  servants  to  put  a  space  between  each  drove, 
apparently  to  add  effect  to  the  splendor  of  his  present — he 
charges  them  to  deliver  severally  their  own  portion,  with 
the  tidings  that  he  was  behind  who  sent  it — he  appoints 
their  places  to  the  women  and  children  with  the  same  pru- 
dential considerations  that  mark  his  whole  conduct ;  first 
the  handmaids  and  their  children ;  then  Leah  and  her 
children ;  and  in  the  hindermost  and  least  exposed  place, 
his  favorite  Rachel  and  Joseph.  Such  are  his  precautions. 
They  are  all  however  needless — Esau  owes  him  no  wrong 
— he  even  proposes  to  escort  him  home  in  peace,  or  to 
leave  him  a  guard  out  of  the  four  hundred  men  that  were 
with  him.  But  Jacob  evades  both  proposals ;  apprehend- 
ing, most  likely,  more  danger  from  his  friends  than  from 
his  foes  ;  and  dismisses  his  brother  with  a  word  about  "  fol- 
lowing  my  lord  to  Seir  ;"  an  intention  which,  as  far  as  we 
know,  he  was  in  more  haste  to  express  than  accomplish. 
All  this  ended,  the  honor  of  his  house  is  violated  by  She- 
ohem,  a  son  of  a  prince  of  that  country.  Even  this  insult 
does  not  throw  him  off  his  guard.  He  heard  it,  "  but  he 
held  his  peace"  till  his  sons,  who  were  with  the  cattle  in 
the  field,  should  come  home.  They  soon  proceed  to  take 
summary  vengeance  on  the  Shechemites.  The  fear  of 
man,  however,  which  had  restrained  the  wrath  of  Jacob 
at  the  first,  besets  him  still,  and  he  now  says  to  his  sons — 
"  Ye  have  troubled  me  to  make  me  to  stink  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  land  ;  and  I  being  few  in  number,  they 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES. 


61 


shall  gather  themselves  together  against  me  and  slay  me ; 
and  I  shall  be  destroyed,  I  and  my  house."1  Jacob  would 
have  been  better  pleased  with  more  compromise  and  less 
cruelty — he  was  not  prepared  to  give  utterance  to  that 
feeling  of  turbulent  indignation,  reckless  of  all  conse- 
quences, which  spake  in  the  words  of  Simeon  and  Levi. 
"Shall  he  deal  with  our  sister  as  with  an  harlot?"  Here 
again,  however,  his  fears  proved  groundless.  Many  years 
now  pass  away,  but  when  we  meet  him  once  more  he  is 
still  the  same — the  same  leading  feature  in  his  character 
continues  to  the  last.  His  sons  go  down  into  Egypt  for 
corn  in  the  famine — they  return  with  an  injunction  from 
Joseph  to  take  back  with  them  Benjamin,  or  else  to  see 
his  face  no  more.  This  is  urged  upon  Jacob,  and  the  re- 
ply it  extorts  from  him  is  in  strict  keeping  with  all  that 
has  gone  before : — "  Wherefore  dealt  ye  so  ill  with  me,  as 
to  tell  the  man  whether  ye  had  yet  a  brother  ?"2  Still  we 
see  one  whom  suffering  had  rendered  distrustful — who 
would  lend  many  his  ear,  but  few  his  tongue.  The  fam- 
ine presses  so  sore,  that  there  is  no  alternative  but  to 
yield  up  his  son.  Still  he  is  the  same  individual.  Judah 
is  in  haste  to  be  gone — he  will  be  surety  for  the  lad — he 
will  bring  him  again,  or  bear  the  blame  forever.  But 
Jacob  gives  little  heed  to  these  vaporing  promises  of  a 
sanguine  adviser,  and  as  stooping  before  a  necessity  which 
was  too  strong  for  him,  he  prudently  sets  himself  to  devise 
means  to  disarm  the  danger ;  and  "  if  it  must  be  so  now," 
says  he,  "  do  this,  take  of  the  best  fruits  of  the  land  in 
your  vessels,  and  carry  down  the  man  a  present,  a  little 
balm  and  a  little  honey,  spices  and  myrrh,  nuts  and  al- 
monds— and  take  double  money  in  your  hand  ;  and  the 
money  that  was  brought  again  in  the  mouth  of  your  sacks, 

i  Gen.  xxxiv.  30.  *  ib.  xliii.  6. 


52  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    I. 

carry  it  again  in  your  hand  ;  peradventure  it  was  an  over- 
sight."1 

I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  these  are  not  marks  of  a 
real  character — especially  when  I  consider  that  this  iden- 
tity \s  found  in  incidents  spread  over  a  period  of  a  hundred 
years  or  more — that  they  are  mere  hints,  as  it  were,  out 
of  which  we  are  left  to  construct  the  man ;  hints  inter- 
rupted by  a  multitude  of  other  matters ;  the  geneal- 
ogy and  adventures  of  Esau  and  his  Arab  tribes;  the 
household  affairs  of  Potiphar ;  the  dreams  of  Pharaoh  ; 
the  polity  of  Egypt — that  the  facts  thus  dispersed  and 
broken  are  to  be  brought  together  by  ourselves,  and  the 
general  induction  to  be  drawn  from  them  by  ourselves, 
nothing  being  more  remote  from  the  mind  of  Moses  than 
to  present  us  with  a  portrait  of  Jacob  ;  nay,  that  of  Isaac, 
who  happens  to  be  less  involved  in  the  circumstances  of 
his  history,  he  scarcely  gives  us  a  single  feature.  Surely, 
with  all  this  before  us,  it  is  impossible  to  entertain  the  idea 
for  a  moment  of  any  studied  uniformity.  Yet  an  uni- 
formity there  is ;  casual,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  Moses, 
who  was  thinking  nothing  about  it — but  complete,  because, 
without  thinking  about  it,  he  was  by  some  means  or  other 
drawing  from  the  life. 

And  now  am  I  thought  to  disparage  the  character  of 
this  holy  man  of  old  ?  God  forbid  !  I  think  that  in  the 
incidents  I  have  named  his  conduct  may  be  excused,  if  not 
justified.  But  were  it  otherwise,  I  am  not  aware  that  any 
of  the  Patriarchs  has  been  set  up,  or  can  be  set  up,  as  a 
genuine  pattern  of  Christian  morals.  They  saw  the 
Promise,  (and  the  more  questionable  parts  of  Jacob's  con- 
duct are  to  be  accounted  for  by  his  impatience  to  obtain 
the  Promise,  and  by  his  consequently  using  unlawful 

Gen.  xliii.  12. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  53 

means  to  obtain  it,)  but  "  they  saw  it  afar  oft" — "they 
beheld  it,  but  not.  nigh."  They  lived  under  a  code  of  laws 
that  were  not  absolutely  good,  perhaps  not  so  good  as  the 
Levitical,  for  as  this  was  but  a  preparation  for  the  more 
perfect  Law  of  Christ,  so  possibly  was  the  Patriarchal  but 
a  preparation  for  the  more  perfect  Law  of  Moses.  Indeed 
I  have  already  observed,  that  many  scattered  hints  may 
be  gathered  from  this  latter  law,  which  show  that  it  was 
but  the  Law  under  which  the  Patriarchs  had  lived  re- 
constructed, augmented,  and  improved — and  I  apprehend 
that  such  a  scheme  of  progressive  advancement,  first  the 
dawn,  then  the  day,  then  the  perfect  day,  is  analogous  to 
God's  dealings  in  general.  But  the  broad  light  in  which 
the  Fathers  of  Israel  are  to  be  viewed  is  this,  that  they 
were  exclusive  worshippers  of  the  One  True  Everlasting 
God,  in  a  world  of  idolaters — that  they  were  living  de- 
positaries of  the  great  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  the  God- 
head, when  the  nations  around  were  resorting  to  every 
green  tree — that  they  "  were  faithful  found  among  the 
faithless."  And  so  incalculably  important  was  the  preser- 
vation of  this  Great  Article  of  the  Creed  of  man,  at  a  time 
when  it  rested  in  the  keeping  of  so  few,  that  the  language 
of  the  Almighty  in  the  Law  seems  ever  to  have  a  respect 
unto  it :  fury,  anger,  indignation,  jealousy,  hatred,  being 
expressions  rarely,  if  ever,  attributed  to  him,  except  in  ref- 
erence to  idolatry — and,  on  the  other  hand,  enemies  of 
God,  adversaries  of  God,  haters  of  God,  being  there — 
chiefly  and  above  all,  idolaters.  But  in  this  sense  God 
was  emphatically  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob :  none  of  them,  not  even  the  last, 
(for  the  only  passage  which  savors  of  the  contrary  admits, 
as  we  have  seen,  of  easy  explanation,)  having  ever  for- 
feited their  claim  to  this  high  and  glorious  title ;  however, 


54  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

such  title  may  not  be  thought  to  imply  that  their  moral 
characters  and  conduct  were  faultless,  and  worthy  of  all 
acceptation. 


IX. 


THE  marks  of  coincidence  without  design,  which  I  have 
brought  forward  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Books  of  Moses 
as  successively  presenting  themselves  in  the  history  of 
Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  I  shall  now  follow  up  by 
others  in  the  history  of  Joseph. 

By  the  ill-concealed  partiality  of  his  father,  and  his  own 
incaution  in  declaring  his  dreams  of  future  greatness, 
Joseph  had  incurred  the  hatred  of  his  brethren.  They 
were  feeding  the  flock  near  Shechem — Jacob  desires  to 
satisfy  himself  of  their  welfare,  and  sends  Joseph  to  in- 
quire of  them  and  to  bring  him  word  again.  Meanwhile 
they  had  driven  further  a-field  to  Dothan,  and  Joseph,  in- 
formed of  this  by  a  man  whom  he  found  wandering  in 
the  country,  followed  them  thither.  They  beheld  him 
when  he  was  yet  afar  off;  his  dress  was  remarkable,1  and 
the  eye  of  the  shepherd  in  the  plain  country  of  the  East, 
like  that  of  the  mariner  now,  was  no  doubt  practised  and 
keen.  They  take  their  counsel  together  against  him. 
They  conclude,  however,  not  to  stain  their  hands  in  the 
blood  of  their  brother,  but  to  cast  him  into  an  empty  pit, 
which,  in  those  countries,  where  the  inhabitants  were 
constantly  engaged  in  a  fruitless  search  for  water,  was  a 
very  likely  place  to  be  on  the  spot.  There  he  was  to  be 
left  to  die,  or,  as  Reuben  intended,  to  remain  till  he  could 
rid  him  out  of  their  hands.  Nothing  could  be  more  artless 
than  this  story.  Nothing  can  bear  more  indisputable 

i  Gen.  xxxvii.  3. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  55 

signs  of  truth  than  its  details.  But  the  circumstance,  on 
which  I  now  rest,  is  another  that  is  mentioned.  The 
brothers  having  achieved  their  evil  purpose,  sat  down  to 
eat  bread — possibly  some  household  present  which  Jacob 
had  sent  them,  and  Joseph  had  just  conveyed,  such  as  on 
a  somewhat  similar  occasion,  in  after-times,  Jesse  sent  and 
David  conveyed  to  his  elder  brethren  in  the  camp — though 
on  this,  as  on  a  thousand  touches  of  truth  of  the  like  kind, 
the  reader  of  Moses  is  left  to  make  his  own  speculations. 
And  now  "  they  lifted  up  their  eyes  and  looked,  and  behold 
a  company  of  Ishmaelites  came  from  Gilead  with  their 
camels,  bearing  spicery  and  balm  and  myrrh,  going  to 
carry  it  down  to  Egypt"1  Now  this,  though  by  no 
means  an  obvious  incident  to  have  suggested  itself,  does 
seem  to  me  a  very  natural  one  to  have  occurred ;  and 
what  is  more,  is  an  incident  which  tallies  remarkably  well 
with  what  we  read  elsewhere,  in  a  passage  however  hav- 
ing no  reference  whatever  to  the  one  in  question.  For 
have  we  not  reason  to  know,  that  at  this  very  early  period 
in  the  history  of  the  world,  this  first  of  caravans  upon 
record  was  charged  with  a  cargo  for  Egypt  singularly 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  Egyptians  at  that  time? 
Expunge  the  2nd  and  '3rd  verses  of  the  50th  chapter  of 
Genesis,  and  the  symptoms  of  veracity  in  the  narrative 
which  I  here  detect,  or  think  I  detect,  would  never  have 
been  discoverable.  But  in  those  verses  I  am  told  that 
Joseph  commanded  the  Physicians  to  embalm  his  father 
• — and  the  Physicians  embalmed  Israel — and  forty  days 
were  fulfilled  to  him  ;  for  so  are  fulfilled  the  days  of  those 
which  are  embalmed,  and  the  Egyptians  mourned  three- 
score and  ten  days."  I  conclude,  therefore,  from  this,  that 
in  these  very  ancient  times  it  was  the  practice  of  the 

1  Gen.  xxxvii.  25. 


56  THE   VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    I. 

Egyptians  (for  Joseph  was  here  doing  that  which  was  the 
custom  of  the  country  where  he  lived),  to  embalm  their 
dead — and  we  know  from  the  case  of  our  Lord  that  an 
hundred  pounds  weight  of  myrrh  and  aloes  was  not  more 
than  enough  for  a  single  body.1  Hence,  then,  the  camel- 
loads  of  spices  which  the  Ishmaelites  were  bringing  from 
Gilead,  would  naturally  enough  find  an  ample  market  in 
Egypt.  Now,  is  it  easy  to  come  to  any  other  conclusion 
when  trifles  of  this  kind  drop  out.  fitted  one  to  another 
like  the  corresponding  parts  of  a  cloven  tally,  than  that 
both  are  true  ? — that  the  historian,  however  he  obtained 
his  intelligence,  is  speaking  of  particulars  which  fell  within 
his  own  knowledge,  and  is  speaking  of  them  faithfully  ? 
Surely  nothing  can  be  more  incidental  than  the  mention 
of  the  lading  of  these  camels  of  the  Ishmaelites — it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  main  fact,  which  is  merely  this, 
that  the  party,  whoever  they  were,  and  whatever  they 
were  bent  upon,  were  ready  to  buy  Joseph,  and  that  his 
brethren  were  ready  to  sell  him.  On  the  other  hand  no 
one  can  suspect,  that  when  Moses  relates  Joseph  to  have 
caused  his  father's  body  to  be  embalmed,  he  had  an  eye  to 
corroborating  his  account  of  the  adventure  which  he  had 
already  told  concerning  the  Ishmaelitish  merchants,  who 
might  thus  seem  occupied  in  a  traffic  that  was  appropriate. 
I  think  that  this  single  coincidence  would  induce  an  un- 
prejudiced person  to  believe,  that  the  ordinary  parts  of 
this  story  are  matters  of  fact  fully  known  to  the  historian, 
and  accurately  reported  by  him.  Yet  it  is  an  integral 
portion  of  this  same  story,  uttered  by  the  same  historian, 
that  Joseph  had  visions  of  his  future  destinies,  which  were 
strictly  fulfilled — that  the  whole  proceeding  with  regard 
to  him  had  been  under  God's  controlling  influence  from 

i  John  xix.  39. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  57 

beginning  to  end — that  though  his  brethren  "  thought  evil 
against  him,  God  meant  it  unto  good,"  to  bring  to  pass,  as 
he  did  at  a  future  day,  "to  save  much  people  alive."1 


X. 


NOR  is  this  all  with  regard  to  Egypt  wherein  is  seen 
the  image  and  superscription  of  truth.  An  argument  for 
the  Veracity  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  found  in  the 
harmony  which  pervades  the  very  many  incidental  notices 
of  the  condition  of  Judea  at  the  period  when  the  New 
Testament  professes  to  have  been  written.  A  similar 
agreement  without  design  may  be  remarked  in  the  oc- 
casional glimpses  of  Egypt  which  open  upon  us  in  the 
course  of  the  Mosaic  History.  For  instance,  I  perceive  in 
each  and  all  of  the  following  incidents,  indirect  indications 
of  this  one  fact,  that  Egypt  was  already  a  great  corn 
country — though  I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  fact  is 
directly  asserted  in  any  passage  in  the  whole  Pentateuch. 
Thus,  when  Abram  found  a  famine  in  the  land  of  Canaan, 
he  "  went  down  into  Egypt  to  sojourn  there."2  There 
was  a  second  famine  in  a  part  of  Canaan  in  the  days  of 
Isaac :  he,  however,  on  this  occasion  went  to  Gerar,  which 
was  in  the  country  of  the  Philistines,  but  it  appears  as 
though  this  was  only  to  have  been  a  stage  in  a  journey 
which  he  was  projecting  into  Egypt ;  for  we  read,  that 
"  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  and  said,  Go  not  down  into 
Egypt;  dwell  in  the  land  which  I  shall  tell  thee  of."3 
There  is  a  third  famine  in  Canaan  in  the  time  of  Jacob, 
and  then  "  all  countries  came  unto  Egypt  to  buy  corn, 
because  the  famine  was  so  sore  in  all  lands."4  Again,  I 

i  Gen.  1.  20.  a  Ib.  xii.  10.  3  ib.  xxvi.  2.  2  ib.  XH.  57. 


58  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART   I. 

read  of  Pharaoh  being  wroth  with  two  of  his  officers — 
they  are  spoken  of  as  persons  of  some  distinction  in  the 
court  of  the  Egyptian  King — and  who  are  they?  One 
was  the  chief  of  the  Butlers,  but  the  other  was  the  chief 
of  the  Bakers.1  Still  I  see  in  this  an  indication  of  Egypt 
being  a  corn  country ;  of  bread  being  there  literally  the 
staff  of  life,  and  the  manufacturing  and  dispensing  of  it 
an  employment  of  considerable  trust  and  consequence. 
So  again  I  find,  that  in  the  fabric  of  the  bricks  in  Egypt 
straw  was  a  very  essential  element ;  and  so  abundant 
does  the  corn-crop  seem  to  have  been — so  widely  was  it 
spread  over  the  face  of  the  country,  that  the  task-masters 
of  the  Israelites  could  exact  the  usual  tale  of  the  bricks, 
though  the  people  had  to  gather  the  stubble  for  themselves 
to  supply  the  place  of  the  straw,  which  was  withheld.2 
Still  I  perceive  in  this  an  intimation  of  the  agricultural 
fertility  of  Egypt, — there  could  not  have  been  the  stubble- 
land  here  implied  unless  corn  had  been  the  staple  crop  of 
the  country.  Then  when  Moses  threatens  to  plague  the 
Egyptians  with  a  Plague  of  Frogs,  what  are  the  places 
which  at  once  present  themselves  as  those  which  are  likely 
to  be  defiled  by  their  presence  ?  "  The  river  shall  bring 
forth  frogs  abundantly,  which  shall  go  up  and  come  into 
thine  house,  and  into  thy  bed-chamber,  and  upon  thy  bed, 
and  into  the  house  of  thy  servants,  and  upon  thy  people, 
and  into  thine  ovens,  and  into  thy  kneading-troughs"* 
And  of  these  kneading-troughs  we  again  read,  as  utensils 
possessed  by  all,  and  without  which  they  could  not  think 
even  of  taking  a  journey — for  on  the  delivery  of  the  Israel- 
ites from  Egypt,  we  find  that  "they  took  their  dough 
before  it  was  leavened,  their  kneading-troughs  being 
bound  up  in  their  clothes  upon  their  shoulders."4 

i  Gen  xl.  1.  2  Exod.  v.  7.  3  Ib.  via.  3.  *  ib.  xiL  34. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  59 

Now  it  may  be  said,  that  we  all  know  Egypt  to  have 
been  a  great  corn-country — that  the  thing  admits  of  no 
doubt,  and  never  did — I  allow  it  to  be  so — and  if  such  a  fact 
had  been  asserted  in  the  writings  of  Moses  as  a  broad  fact, 
I  should  have  taken  no  notice  of  it,  for  it  would  then  have 
afforded  no  ground  for  an  argument  like  this  ;  in  such  a 
case,  Moses  might  have  come  at  the  knowledge  as  we 
ourselves  may  have  done,  by  having  visited  the  country 
himself,  or  by  having  received  a  report  of  it  from  others 
who  had  visited  it,  and  so  might  have  incorporated  this 
amongst  other  incidents  in  his  history ;  but  I  do  not  ob- 
serve it  asserted  by  him  in  round  terms ;  it  is  not  indeed 
asserted  by  him  at  all — it  is  intimated — intimated  when 
he  is  manifestly  not  thinking  about  it,  when  his  mind  and 
his  pen  are  quite  intent  upon  other  matters ;  intimated  very 
often,  very  indirectly,  in  very  various  ways.  The  fact 
itself  of  Egypt  being  a  great  corn-country  was  no  doubt 
perfectly  well  known  to  Dr.  Johnson,  but  though  so  much 
of  the  scene  of  Rasselas  is  laid  in  Egypt,  I  will  venture  to 
say,  that  there  are  in  it  no  hints  of  the  nature  I  am  de- 
scribing ;  such,  I  mean,  as  would  serve  to  convince  us  that 
the  author  was  relating  a  series  of  events  which  had  hap- 
pened under  his  own  eye,  and  that  the  places  with  which 
he  combines  them  were  not  ideal,  but  those  wherein  they 
actually  came  to  pass. 

Surely  then  it  is  very  satisfactory  to  discover  concur- 
rence thus  uniform,  thus  uncontrived,  in  particulars  falling 
out  at  intervals  in  the  course  of  an  artless  narrative  which 
is  not  afraid  to  proclaim  the  Almighty  as  manifesting 
himself  by  signal  miracles,  and  which  connects  those  mir- 
acles too  in  the  closest  union  with  the  subordinate  matters 
of  which  we  have  thus  been  able  to  ascertain  the  probable 
truth  and  accuracy. 


60  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 


XI. 


BEFORE  we  dismiss  this  question  of  the  Corn  in  Egypt, 
we  may  remark  another  trifling  instance  or  two  of  con- 
sistency without  design  declaring  themselves  in  this  part 
of  the  narrative  and  tending  to  strengthen  our  belief  in  it. 
Joseph,  it  seems,1  advised  Pharaoh  before  the  famine 
began,  to  appoint  officers  over  the  land,  that  should  "  take 
up  the  fifth  part  of  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  seven  plen- 
teous years."  After  this  we  have  several  chapters  occu- 
pied with  the  details  of  the  history  of  Jacob  and  his  sons 
— the  journey  of  the  latter  to  Egypt — their  return  to  their 
father — the  repetition  of  their  journey — the  discovery  of 
Joseph — the  migration  of  the  Patriarch  with  all  his  family 
of  whom  the  individuals  are  named  after  their  respective 
heads — the  introduction  of  Jacob  to  Pharaoh,  and  his  final 
settlement  in  the  land  of  Goshen.  Then  the  affair  of  the 
famine  is  again  touched  upon  in  a  few  verses,  and  a  per- 
manent regulation  of  property  in  Egypt  is  recorded  as  the 
accidental  result  of  that  famine.  For  the  people  who  had 
sold  both  themselves  and  their  lands  to  Pharaoh  for  corn 
to  preserve  life,  are  now  permitted  to  redeem  both  on  the 
payment  of  a  fifth  of  the  produce  to  the  King  forever. 
"  And  Joseph  made  it  a  law  over  the  land  of  Egypt  unto 
this  day,  that  Pharaoh  should  have  the  fifth  part."2  Now 
this  was,  as  we  had  been  told  in  a  former  chapter, 
precisely  the  proportion  which  Joseph  had  "  taken  up" 
before  the  famine  began.  It  was  then  an  arrangement 
entered  into  with  the  proprietors  of  the  soil  prospectively, 
as  likely  to  insure  the  subsistence  of  the  people  ;  the  ex- 
periment was  found  to  answer  and  the  opportunity  of 

i  Gen.  xli.  34.  2  Ib.  xlvii  26. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  61 

perpetuating  it  having  occurred,  the  arrangement  was  now 
made  lasting  and  compulsory.  Magazines  of  corn  were 
henceforth  to  be  established  which  should  at  all  times  be 
ready  to  meet  an  accidental  failure  of  the  harvest.  Can 
anything  be  more  natural  than  this  ?  anything  more 
common  than  for  great  civil  and  political  changes  t<? 
spring  out  of  provisions  which  chanced  to  be  made  to  meet 
some  temporary  emergency?  Has  not  our  own  constitu- 
tion, arid  have  not  the  constitutions  of  most  other  countries, 
ancient  and  modern,  grown  out  of  occasion — out  of  the 
impulse  of  the  day  ? 

Further  still.  Though  Joseph  possessed  himself  on  his 
royal  master's  account  of  all  the  land  of  Egypt  besides, 
and  disposed  of  the  people  throughout  the  country  just  as 
he  pleased,1  u  he  did  not  buy  the  land  of  the  priests,  for 
the  priests  had  a  portion  assigned  them  of  Pharaoh,  and 
did  eat  their  portion  which  Pharaoh  gave  them,  wherefore 
they  sold  not  their  lands."  The  priests  then,  we  see, 
were  greatly  favored  in  the  arrangements  made  at  this 
period  of  national  distress.  Now  does  not  this  accord  with 
what  we  had  been  told  on  a  former  occasion. — that  Pha- 
raoh being  desirous  to  do  Joseph  honor,  causing  him  to 
ride  in  the  second  chariot  that  he  had,  and  crying  before 
him,  Bow  the  knee,  and  making  him  ruler  over  all  the 
land  of  Egypt,2  added  yet  this  as  the  final  proof  of  his 
high  regard,  that  "  he  gave  him  to  wife  Asenath,  the 
daughter  of  Potipherah,  Priest  of  On?"3  When  therefore 
the  priests  were  thus  held  in  esteem  by  Pharaoh,  and 
when  the  minister  of  Pharaoh,  under  whose  immediate 
directions  all  the  regulations  of  the  polity  of  Egypt  were 
at  that  time  conducted,  had  the  daughter  of  one  of  them 
for  his  wife,  is  it  not  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
to  have  happened,  that  their  lands  should  be  spared  ? 

i  Gen.  xlvii.  22.  2  ib.  xli.  43.  3  Ib.  xli.  45. 

6 


62  THE   VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    I. 


XII. 

I  HAVE  already  found  an  argument  for  the  veracity  of 
Moses  in  the  identity  of  Jacob's  character :  I  now  find  an- 
other in  the  identity  of  that  of  Joseph.  There  is  one  quality 
(as  it  has  been  often  observed,  though  with  a  different  view 
from  mine),  which  runs  like  a  thread  through  his  whole 
history,  his  affection  for  his  father.  Israel  loved  him, 
we  read,  more  than  all  his  children — he  was  the  child  of 
his  age — his  mother  died  whilst  he  was  yet  young,  and  a 
double  care  of  him  consequently  devolved  upon  his  survi- 
ving parent.  He  made  him  a  coat  of  many  colors — he 
kept  him  at  home  when  his  other  sons  were  sent  to  feed 
the  flocks.  When  the  bloody  garment  was  brought  in, 
Jacob  in  his  affection  for  him,  (that  same  affection  which 
on  a  subsequent  occasion,  when  it  was  told  him  that  after 
all  Joseph  was  alive,  made  him  as  slow  to  believe  the 
good  tidings  as  he  was  now  quick  to  apprehend  the  sad,) 
in  this  his  affection  for  him,  I  say,  Jacob  at  once  concluded 
the  worst ;  and  "  he  rent  his  clothes  and  put  sackcloth 
upon  his  loins,  and  mourned  for  his  son  many  days,  and 
all  his  daughters  rose  up  to  comfort  him  ;  but  he  refused 
to  be  comforted,  and  he  said,  For  I  will  go  down  into  the 
grave  of  my  son  mourning." 

Now  what  were  the  feelings  in  Joseph  which  responded 
to  these  ?  When  the  sons  of  Jacob  went  down  to  Egypt, 
and  Joseph  knew  them  though  they  knew  not  him,  for 
they  (it  may  be  remarked,  and  this  again  is  not  like  fic- 
tion), were  of  an  age  not  to  be  greatly  changed  by  the 
lapse  of  years,  and  were  still  sustaining  the  character  in 
which  Joseph  had  always  seen  them,  whilst  he  himself 
had  meanwhile  grown  out  of  the  stripling  into  the  man, 
and  from  a  shepherd-boy  was  become  the  ruler  of  a  king- 


PART   I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  63 

dom — when  his  brethren  thus  came  before  him,  his  ques- 
tion was,  "  Is  your  father  yet  alive  7"1  They  went  down 
a  second  time,  and  again  the  question  was,  "  Is  your  fa- 
ther well,  the  old  man  of  whom  ye  spake,  is  he  yet  alive  ?" 
More  he  could  not  venture  to  ask,  whilst  he  was  yet  in 
his  disguise.  By  a  stratagem  he  now  detains  Benjamin, 
leaving  the  others,  if  they  would,  to  go  their  way.  But 
Judah  came  near  unto  him,  and  entreated  him  for  his 
brother,  telling  him  how  that  he  had  been  "  surety  to  his 
father'1  to  bring  him  back,  how  that  "  his  father  was  an 
old  man,"  and  that  this  was  the  "  child  of  his  old  age,  and 
that  he  loved  him," — how  it  would  come  to  pass  that  if  he 
should  not  see  the  lad  with  him  he  would  die,  and  his 
gray  hairs  be  brought  with  sorrow  to  the  grave  ;  for  "  how 
shall  I  go  to  my  father,  and  the  lad  be  not  with  me  ? — 
lest,  peradventure,  I  see  the  evil  that  shall  come  on  my  fa 
ther"  Here,  without  knowing  it,  he  had  struck  the  string 
that  was  the  tenderest  of  all.  Joseph's  firmness  forsook 
him  at  this  repeated  mention  of  his  father,  and  in  terms 
so  touching — he  could  not  refrain  himself  any  longer,  and 
causing  every  man  to  go  out,  he  made  himself  known  to 
his  brethren.  Then,  even  in  the  paroxysm  which  came 
on  him,  (for  he  wept  aloud  so  that  the  Egyptians  heard,) 
still  his  first  words  uttered  from  the  fulness  of  his  heart 
were,  "  Doth  my  father  yet  live  ?"  He  now  bids  them 
hasten  and  bring  the  old  man  down,  bearing  to  him  tokens 
of  his  love  and  tidings  of  his  glory.  He  goes  to  meet  him 
— he  presents  himself  unto  him,  and  falls  on  his  neck  and 
weeps  on  his  neck  a  good  while — he  provides  for  him  and 
his  household  out  of  the  fat  of  the  land — he  sets  him 
before  Pharaoh.  By  and  by  he  hears  that  he  is  sick,  and 
hastens  to  visit  him—  he  receives  his  blessing — watches 

i  Gen.  xliii.  7. 


64  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

his  death-bed — embalms  his  body — mourns  for  him  three- 
score and  ten  days — and  then  carries  him  (as  he  had  de- 
sired), into  Canaan  to  bury  him.  taking  with  him  as  an 
escort  to  do  him  honor,  "  all  the  elders  of  Egypt,  and 
all  the  servants  of  Pharaoh,  and  all  his  house,  and  the 
house  of  his  brethren,  chariots  and  horsemen,  a  very 
great  company."  How  natural  it  was  now  for  his  breth- 
ren to  think  that  the  tie  by  which  alone  they  could 
imagine  Joseph  to  be  held  to  them  was  dissolved,  that 
any  respect  he  might  have  felt  or  feigned  for  them, 
must  have  been  buried  in  the  Cave  of  Machpelah,  and 
that  he  would  now  requite  to  them  the  evil  they  had 
done !  "  And  they  sent  a  message  unto  Joseph,  saying, 
Thy  father  did  command  before  he  died,  saying,  So  shall 
ye  say  unto  Joseph,  Forgive,  I  pray  thee  now,  the  tres- 
pass of  thy  brethren  and  their  sin, — for  they  did  unto  thee 
evil."  And  then  they  add  of  themselves,  as  if  well  aware 
of  the  surest  road  to  their  brother's  heart,  "  Forgive,  we 
pray  thee,  the  trespass  of  the  servants  of  the  God  of  thy 
father"  In  everything  the  father's  name  is  still  put  fore- 
most :  it  is  his  memory  which  they  count  upon  as  their 
shield  and  buckler.  Moreover,  it  may  be  added,  that 
though  all  intercourse  had  ceased  for  so  many  years  be- 
tween Joseph  and  his  family,  still  the  lasting  affection  he 
bore  a  parent  is  manifested  in  the  name  which  he  gave  to 
his  son  born  to  him  only  two  years  before  the  famine,  even 
Manasseh,  or  forgetting,  for  God,  said  he,  "  hath  made 
me  forget  all  my  hire  and  all  my  father's  house  ;'J1  as 
though  £  instead  of  his  father  he  must  have  children'  to 
fill  up  the  void  in  his  heart  which  a  parent's  loss  had 
created. 

It  is  not  the  singular  beauty  of  these  scenes,  or  the 

i  Gen.  xli.  51. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  DO 

moral  lesson  they  teach,  excellent  as  it  is,  with  which  I 
arn  now  concerned,  but  simply  the  perfect  artless  consist- 
ency which  prevails  through  them  all.  It  is  not  the  con- 
stancy with  which  the  son's  strong  affection  for  his  father 
had  lived  through  an  interval  of  twenty  years'  absence, 
and  what  is  more,  through  the  temptation  of  sudden  pro- 
motion to  the  highest  estate — it  is  not  the  noble-minded 
frankness  with  which  he  still  acknowledges  his  kindred, 
and  makes  a  way  for  them,  "  shepherds"  as  they  were,  to 
the  throne  of  Pharaoh  himself — it  is  not  the  simplicity  and 
singleness  of  heart,  which  allow  him  to  give  all  the  first- 
born of  Egypt,  men  over  whom  he  bore  absolute  rule,  an 
opportunity  of  observing  his  own  comparatively  humble 
origin,  by  leading  them  in  attendance  upon  his  father's 
corpse,  to  the  valleys  of  Canaan  and  the  modest  cradle  of 
his  race — it  is  not,  in  a  word,  the  grace,  but  the  identity 
of  Joseph's  character,  the  light  in  which  it  is  exhibited  by 
himself,  and  the  light  in  which  it  is  regarded  by  his  breth- 
ren, to  which  I  now  point  as  stamping  it  with  marks  of 
reality  not  to  be  gainsaid. 


XIII. 

I  WILL  now  follow  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  into  the 
wilderness,  on  their  return  to  the  land  from  which  their 
fathers  had  wandered,  and  which  they,  or  at  least  their 
children,  were  destined  to  enjoy. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  Leviticus  we  are  told  that  "  Na- 
dab  and  Abihu,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  took  either  of  them  his 
censer  and  put  fire  therein,  and  put  incense  thereon,  and 
offered  strange  fire  unto  the  Lord,  which  he  commanded 
them  not.  And  there  went  out  fire  from  the  Lord  and  de- 
voured them,  and  they  died  before  the  Lord."  Now  it  is- 

6* 


66  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

natural  to  ask,  how  came  Nadab  and  Abihu  to  be  guilty 
of  this  careless  affront  to  God,  lighting  their  censers  proba- 
bly from  their  own  hearths,  and  not  from  the  hallowed  fire 
of  the  altar,  as  they  were  commanded  to  do.  Possibly  we 
cannot  guess  how  it  happened — it  may  be  one  of  those 
many  matters  which  are  of  no  particular  importance  to  be 
known,  and  concerning  which  we  are  accordingly  left  in 
the  dark.  Yet  when  I  read  shortly  afterwards  the  follow- 
ing instructions  given  to  Aaron,  I  am  led  to  suspect  that 
they  had  their  origin  in  some  recent  abuse  which  called 
for  them,  though  no  such  origin  is  expressly  assigned  to 
them.  I  cannot  help  imagining,  that  the  offence  of  Nadab 
and  Abihu  was  at  the  bottom  of  the  statute,  "  Do  not  drink 
wine  nor  strong  drink,  thou  nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  when 
ye  go  into  the  Tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  lest  ye  die 
— it  shall  be  a  statute  forever  throughout  your  generations  : 
and  that  ye  may  put  difference  between  holy  and  unholy, 
and  between  clean  and  unclean,  and  that  ye  may  teach 
the  children  of  Israel  all  the  statutes  which  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  unto  them  by  the  hands  of  Moses."  Thus  far  at 
least  is  clear,  that  a  grievous  and  thoughtless  insult  is  of- 
fered to  God  by  two  of  his  Priests,  for  which  they  are  cut 
off — that  without  any  direct  allusion  to  their  case,  but  still 
very  shortly  after  it  had  happened,  a  law  is  issued  forbid- 
ding the  Priests  the  use  of  wine  when  about  to  minister. 
I  conclude,  therefore,  that  there  was  a  relation  (though  it 
is  not  asserted)  between  the  specific  offence  and  the  gen- 
eral law  ;  the  more  so,  because  the  sin  against  which  that 
law  is  directed  is  just  of  a  kind  to  have  produced  the  rash 
and  inconsiderate  act  of  which  Aaron's  sons  were  guilty. 
If,  therefore,  this  incidental  mention  of  such  a  law  at  such 
a  moment,  a  moment  so  likely  to  suggest  the  enactment 
of  it,  be  thought  enough  to  establish  the  law  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  then  have  we  once  more  ground  to  stand  upon ; 


PART  I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  67 

for  the  enactment  of  the  law  is  coupled  with  the  sin  of 
Aaron's  sons  ;  their  sin  with  their  punishment ;  their  pun- 
ishment with  a  miracle.  Nor,  it  may  be  added,  does  the 
unreserved  and  faithful  record  of  such  a  death,  suffered  for 
such  an  offence,  afford  an  inconsiderable  argument  in  favor 
of  the  candor  and  honesty  of  Moses,  who  is  no  respecter 
of  persons  it  seems ;  but  when  God's  glory  is  concerned, 
and  the  welfare  of  the  people  intrusted  to  him,  does  not 
scruple  to  be  the  chronicler  of  the  disgrace  and  destruction 
even  of  the  children  of  his  own  brother. 


XIV. 

ANOTHER  coincidence  suggests  itself,  arising  out  of 
this  same  portion  of  history,  whether  however  founded  in 
fact  or  in  fancy,  be  my  readers  the  judges.  From  the  9th 
chapter  of  Numbers,  v.  15,  we  learn  that  the  Tabernacle 
was  erected  in  the  wilderness  preparatory  to  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  first  Passover  kept  by  the  Israelites  after  their 
escape  from  Egypt.  From  the  40th  chapter  of  Exodus 
we  find,  that  it  was  reared  on  the  first  day  of  the  first 
month,  (v.  2,)  or  thirteen  days  before  the  Passover,1  and 
that  at  the  same  time  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  consecrated 
to  minister  in  it  (v.  13.)  In  the  8th  and  9th  chapters  of 
Liviticus  are  given  the  particulars  of  their  consecration, 
(8lh,  6,  12,  30,)  and  the  ceremony  is  said  to  have  occupied 
seven  days,  (v.  33,)  during  which  they  were  not  to  leave 
the  Tabernacle  day  or  night.  On  the  eighth  day  they  of- 
fered up  sin-offerings  for  themselves  and  for  the  people.  It 
was  on  this  same  day,  as  we  read  in  the  tenth  chapter,3 
that  Nadab  and  Abihu  were  cut  off  because  of  the  strange 

1  Lev.  xxiii.  5.  *  See  ch.  ix.  8,  12;  x.  19. 


68  THE    VERACITY    OP   THE  PART    I. 

fire  which  they  offered,  and  their  dead  bodies  were  dis- 
posed of  as  follows : — "  Moses  called  Mishael  and  Eliza- 
phan  the  sons  of  Uzziel,  the  uncle  of  Aaron,  and  said  unto 
them,  Come  near,  carry  your  brethren  from  before  the 
sanctuary  out  of  the  camp.  So  they  went  near,  and  car- 
ried them  in  their  coats  out  of  the  camp."  (x.  4.)  All  this 
happened  on  the  eighth  day  of  the  first  month,  or  just  six 
days  before  the  Passover. 

Now  in  the  9th  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Numbers,  which 
speaks  of  this  identical  Passover,  (v.  1,)  as  will  be  seen 
by  a  reference  to  the  first  verse  of  that  chapter,  (indeed 
there  is  no  mention  of  more  than  this  one  Passover  having 
been  kept  in  the  whole  march,1)  in  this  9th  chapter  I  am 
told  of  the  following  incidental  difficulty ; — that  "  there 
were  certain  men  who  were  defiled  by  the  dead  body  of 
a  man,  that  they  could  not  keep  the  Passover  on  that  day 
— and  they  came  before  Moses  and  before  Aaron  on  that 
day — and  those  men  said  unto  him,  We  are  defiled  by  the 
dead  body  of  a  man,  wherefore  we  are  kept  back  that  we 
may  not  offer  an  offering  to  the  Lord  in  his  appointed  sea- 
son among  the  children  of  Israel."  (v.  6,  7.)  The  case  is 
spoken  of  as  a  solitary  one. 

Now  it  may  be  observed,  by  way  of  limiting  the  ques- 
tion, that  the  number  of  Israelites  who  paid  a  tax  to  the 
Tabernacle  a  short  time,  and  only  a  short  time,  before  its 
erection,  were  603,550,  being  all  the  males  above  twenty 
years  of  age,  the  Levites  excepted* — at  least  this  exception 
is  all  but  certain,  that  tribe  being  the  tellers,  being  already 
consecrated,  and  set  apart  from  the  other  tribes,  and  it  not 
being  usual  to  take  the  sum  of  them  among  the  children 
of  Israel.3  Moreover,  the  number  is  likely,  in  this  instance, 
to  be  correct,  because  it  tallies  with  the  number  of  talents 

i  See  also  Josh.  v.  9,  10.  3  Exod.  xxxviu.  26. 

3  See  Numb.  i.  47,  49,  and  xxvi.  62. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  69 

to  which  the  poll-tax  amounted  at  half  a  shekel  a  head. 
But  shortly  after  the  Tabernacle  had  been  set  up,  (for  it 
was  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  month  of  the  second 
year.)  the  number  of  the  people  was  again  taken  accord- 
ing to  the  families  and  tribes,1  and  still  it  is  just  the  same 
as  before,  003,550  men.  In  this  short  interval,  therefore, 
(which  is  that  in  which  we  are  now  interested,)  it  should 
seem,  that  no  man  had  died  of  the  males  who  were  above 
twenty,  not  being  Levites — for  of  these  no  account  seems 
to  have  been  taken  in  either  census — indeed  in  the  latter 
census  they  are  expressly  excepted.  The  dead  body, 
therefore,  by  which  these  "certain  men"  were  defiled, 
could  noi,  have  belonged  to  this  large  class  of  the  Israel- 
ites. But  of  a  case  of  death,  and  of  defilement  in  conse- 
quence, which  had  happened  only  six  days  before  the 
Passover,  amongst  the  Levites,  we  had  been  told  (as  we 
have  seen)  in  the  9th  chapter  of  Leviticus.  My  con- 
clusion, therefore,  is.  that  these  "  certain  men,"  who  were 
defiled,  were  no  others  than  MishaeF  and  Elizaphan,  who 
had  carried  out  the  dead  bodies  of  Nadab  and  Abilm 
Neither  can  anything  be  more  likely  than  that,  with  the 
lively  impression  on  their  minds  of  God's  wrath  so  recently 
testified  against  those  who  should  presume  to  approach  him 
unhallowed,  they  should  refer  their  case  to  Moses.,  and  run 
no  risk. 

I  state  the  conclusion  and  the  grounds  of  it.  To  those 
who  require  stronger  proof,  I  can  only  say,  I  have  none  to 
give  ;  but  if  the  coincidence  be  thought  well  founded,  then 
surely  a  more  striking  example  of  consistency  without  de- 
sign cannot  be  well  conceived.  Indeed,  after  it  had  been 
suggested  to  me  by  a  hint  to  this  effect,  thrown  out  by  Dr. 
Shuckford,  unaccompanied  by  any  exposition  of  the  argu/- 

i  Numb.  i.  46. 


70  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    I. 

ments  which  might  be  urged  in  support  of  it,  I  had  put  it 
aside  as  one  of  those  gratuitous  conjectures  in  which  that 
learned  Author  may  perhaps  be  thought  sometimes  to  in- 
dulge— till  by  searching  more  accurately  through  several  de- 
tached parts  of  several  detached  chapters  in  Exodus.  Levit- 
icus, arid  Numbers,  I  was  able  to  collect  the  evidence  I  have 
produced,  whether  satisfactory  or  not — be  my  readers,  as  I 
have  said,  the  judges.  For  myself,  I  confess,  that  though 
it  is  not  demonstrative,  it  is  very  persuasive. 


XV. 

"  ALL  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  we 
read,1  "journeyed  from  the  wilderness  of  Sin,  after  their 
journeys  according  to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  and 
pitched  in  Rephidim,  and  there  was  no  water  for  the  peo- 
ple to  drink." — "  And  the  people  thirsted  there  for  water  ; 
and  the  people  murmured  against  Moses,  and  said,  Where- 
fore is  this,  that  thou  hast  brought  us  up  out  of  Egypt  to 
kill  us  and  our  children  and  our  cattle  with  thirst  ?"  (v.  3.) 
Moses  upon  this  entreats  the  Lord  for  Israel ;  and  the  nar- 
rative proceeds  in  the  words  of  the  Almighty — "  Behold,  I 
will  stand  before  thee  there  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb,  and 
thoushalt  smite  the  rock,  and  there  shall  come  water  out  of 
it,  that  my  people  may  drink.  And  Moses  did  so  in  the  sight 
of  the  elders  of  Israel.  And  he  called  the  name  of  the 
place  Massah,  and  Meribah,  because  of  the  chiding  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  because  they  tempted  the  Lord,  say- 
ing, Is  the  Lord  among  us,  or  not  T  "  Then  came  Ama- 
lek"  the  narrative  continues,  "  and  fought  with  Israel  in 
Rephidim" 

i  Exod.  xvii.  i. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  71 

Now  this  last  incident  is  mentioned,  as  must  be  perceived 
at  once,  without  any  other  reference  to  what  had  gone  be- 
fore than  a  reference  of  date.  It  was  "  then"  that  Amalek 
came.  It  is  the  beginning  of  another  adventure  which 
befell  the  Israelites,  and  which  Moses  now  goes  on  to  relate. 
Accordingly  in  many  copies  of  our  English  version  a  mark 
is  here  introduced  indicating  the  commencement  of  a  fresh 
paragraph.  Yet  I  cannot  but  suspect,  that  there  is  a  coin- 
cidence in  this  case  between  the  production  of  the  water, 
in  an  arid  wilderness,  and  the  attack  of  the  Amalekites — 
that  though  no  hint  whatever  to  this  effect  is  dropped, 
there  is  nevertheless  the  relation  between  them  of  cause 
and  consequence.  For  what  in  those  times  and  those 
countries  wras  so  common  a  bone  of  contention  as  the  pos- 
session of  a  well  ?  Thus  we  read  of  Abraham  reproving 
Abimelech  "  because  of  a  well  of  water,  which  Abime- 
lech's  servants  had  violently  taken  away."1  And  again 
we  are  told,  that  "  Isaac's  servants  digged  in  a  valley  and 
found  there  a  well  of  springing  water — and  the  herds- 
men of  Gerar  did  strive  with  Isaac's  herdsmen,  saying, 
The  water  is  ours,  and  he  called  the  name  of  the  well 
Esek,  because  they  strove  with  him.  And  they  digged 
another  well,  and  strove  for  that  also ;  and  he  called  the 
name  of  it  Sitnah.  And  he  removed  from  thence,  and 
digged  another  well,  and  for  that  they  strove  not ;  and  he 
called  the  name  of  it  Rehoboth  ;  and  he  said,  For  now  the 
Lord  hath  made  room  for  us,  and  we  shall  be  fruitful  in 
the  land."2  In  like  manner  when  the  daughters  of  the 
Priest  of  Midian  "  came  and  drew  .water,  and  filled  the 
troughs  to  water  their  father's  flock,  the  shepherds,"  we 
find,  "  came  and  drove  them  away :  but  Moses  stood  up 
and  helped  them,  and  watered  their  flock.  *3  And  again, 

i  Gen  xxi.  25.  2  Ib.  xxvi.  22.  3  Exod.  ii.  17. 


/*  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

when  Moses  sent  messengers  to  the  King  of  Edom  with 
proposals  that  he  might  be  permitted  to  lead  the  people  of 
Israel  through  his  territory,  the  subject  of  water  enters  very 
largely  into  the  terms  :  "  Let  me  pass,  I  pray  thee,  through 
thy  country :  we  will  not  pass  through  the  fields  and 
through  the  vineyards,  neither  will  we  drink  of  the  water 
of  the  wells :  we  will  go  by  the  king's  highway — we  will 
not  turn  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left,  until  we  have 
passed  thy  borders.  And  Edom  said  unto  him,  Thou  shalt 
not  pass  by  me  lest  I  come  out  against  thee  with  the  sword. 
And  the  children  of  Israel  said  unto  him,  We  will  go  by  the 
highway :  and  if  I  and  my  cattle  drink  of  thy  water  >  then 
I  will  pay  for  it"1  Again,  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  Moses 
sent  messengers  to  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,  with  the 
same  stipulations : — "  Let  me  pass  through  thy  land  :  we 
will  not  turn  into  the  fields  or  into  the  vineyards  ;  we  will 
not  drink  of  the  waters  of  the  well,  but  we  will  go  along 
by  the  king's  highway,  until  we  be  past  thy  borders."2 
And  when  Moses  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  recapitulates 
some  of  the  Lord's  commands,  one  of  them  is,  as  touching 
the  children  of  Esau,  "  Meddle  not  with  them  ;  for  I  will 
not  give  you  their  land,  no,  not  so  much  as  a  foot  breadth, 
because  I  have  given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau  for  a  possession. 
Ye  shall  buy  meat  of  them  for  money  that  ye  may  eat.  and 
ye  shall  also  buy  water  of  them  for  money  that  ye  may 
drink"3  Indeed  the  well  is  quite  a  feature  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Moses,  brief  as  that  narrative  is.  It  unobtrusively 
but  constantly  reminds  us  of  our  scene  lying  ever  in  the 
East — just  as  the  Forum  could  not  fail  to  be  perpetually 
mixing  itself  up  with  the  details  of  any  history  of  Rome 
which  was  not  spurious.  The  well  is  the  spring  of  life. 
It  is  the  place  of  meeting  for  the  citizens  in  the  cool  of  the 

i  Numb.  xx.  17.  2  ib.  xxi.  22.  s  Deut.  ii.  6. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  73 

day — the  place  of  resort  for  the  shepherds  and  herdsmen 
—it  is  here  that  we  may  witness  the  acts  of  courtesy  or  of 
stratagem — acts  of  religion — acts  of  civil  compact — acts 
commemorative  of  things  past — it  is  here  that  the  journey 
ends — it  is  by  this  that  the  next  is  regulated — hither  the 
fugitive  and  the  outcast  repair — here  the  weary  pilgrim 
rests  himself — the  lack  of  it  is  the  curse  of  a  kingdom, 
and  the  prospect  of  it  in  abundance  the  blessing  which 
helps  forward  the  steps  of  the  stranger  when  he  seeks 
another  country.  It  enters  as  an  element  into  the  lan- 
guage itself  of  Holy  Writ,  and  the  simile,  the  illustration, 
the  metaphor,  are  still  telling  forth  the  great  Eastern 
apophthegm,  that  of  "all  things  WATER  is  the  first."  Of 
such  value  was  the  well — so  fruitful  a  source  of  contention 
in  those  parched  and  thirsty  lands  was  the  possession  of  a 
well! 

Now  applying  these  passages  to  the  question  before  us, 
I  think  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  sudden  gushing  of  the 
water  from  the  rock,  (which  was  the  sudden  discovery  of 
an  invaluable  treasure,)  and  the  subsequent  onset  of  the 
Amalekites  at  the  very  same  place — for  both  occurrences 
are  said  to  have  happened  at  Rcphidim,  though  given  as 
perfectly  distinct  and  independent  matters,  do  coincide  very 
remarkably  with  one  another ;  and  yet  so  undesigned  is 
the  coincidence,  (if  indeed  coincidence  it  is  after  all,)  that 
it  might  not  suggest  itself  even  to  readers  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch whose  lot  is  cast  in  a  torrid  clime,  and  to  whom 
the  value  of  a  draught  of  cold  water  is  therefore  well 
known  :  still  less  to  those  who  live  in  a  land  of  brooks,  like 
our  own,  a  land  of  fountains  and  depths  that  spring  out  of 
the  valleys  and  hills,  and  who  may  drink  of  them  freely 
without  cost  and  without  quarrel. 

If  then  it  be  admitted,  that  the  issue  of  the  torrent  from 
the  rock  synchronizes  very  singularly  with  the  aggression 

7  " 


74  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

of  Amalekj  yet  that  the  narrative  of  the  two  events  does 
not  hint  at  any  connection  whatever  between  them,  I 
think  that  all  suspicion  of  contrivance  is  laid  to  sleep,  and 
that  whatever  force  is  due  to  the  argument  of  consistency 
without  contrivance  as  a  test,  and  as  a  testimony  of  truth, 
obtains  here.  Yet  here,  as  in  so  many  other  instances 
already  adduced,  the  stamp  of  truth,  such  as  it  is,  is  found 
where  a  miracle  is  intimately  concerned  ;  for  if  the  coinci- 
dence in  question  be  thought  enough  to  satisfy  us  that 
Moses  was  relating  an  indisputable  matter  of  fact,  when 
he  said  that  the  Israelites  received  a  supply  of  water  at 
Rephidim,  it  adds  to  our  confidence  that  he  is  relating  an 
indisputable  matter  of  fact  too,  when  he  says  in  the  same 
breath,  that  it  was  a  miraculous  supply — where  we  can 
prove  that  there  is  truth  in  a  story  so  far  as  a  scrutiny  of 
our  own,  which  was  not  contemplated  by  the  party  whose 
words  we  are  trying,  enables  us  to  go,  it  is  only  fair  to 
infer,  in  the  absence  of  all  testimony  to  the  contrary,  that 
there  is  truth  also  in  such  parts  of  the  same  story  as  our 
scrutiny  cannot  attain  unto.  And  indeed  it  seems  to  me, 
that  the  sin  of  Amalek  on  this  occasion,  a  sin  which  was 
so  offensive  in  God's  sight  as  to  be  treasured  up  in  judg- 
ment against  that  race,  causing  Him  eventually  to  destroy 
them  utterly,  derived  its  heinousness  from  this  very  thing, 
that  the  Amalekites  were  here  endeavoring  to  dispossess 
the  Israelites  of  a  vital  blessing  which  God  had  sent  to 
them  by  miracle,  and  which  he  could  not  so  send  without 
making  it  manifest  even  to  the  Amalekites  themselves, 
that  the  children  of  Israel  were  under  his  special  care — 
that  in  fighting  therefore  against  Israel,  they  were  fighting 
against  God.  And  such,  I  persuade  myself,  is  the  true 
force  of  an  expression  in  Deuteronomy  used  in  reference 
to  this  very  incident — for  Amalek  is  there  said  to  "  have 
smitten  them  when  they  were  weary,  and  to  have  feared 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  75 

not  God  ;"1  that  is,  to  have  done  it  in  defiance  of  a  mira- 
cle, which  ought  to  have  impressed  them  with  a  fear  of 
God,  indicating,  as  of  course  it  did,  that  God  willed  not 
the  destruction  of  this  people. 


XVI. 

AMONGST  the  institutions  established  or  confirmed  by 
the  Almighty  whilst  the  Israelites  were  on  their  march, 
for  their  observance  when  they  should  have  taken  posses- 
sion of  the  land  of  Canaan,  this  was  one — "  Three  times 
thou  shall  keep  a  feast  unto  me  in  the  year.  Thou  shalt 
keep  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  bread — thou  shalt  eat  un- 
leavened bread  seven  days,  as  I  commanded  thee,  in  the 
time  appointed  of  the  month  Abib ;  for  in  it  thou  earnest 
out  from  Egypt ;  and  none  shall  appear  before  me  empty  : 
— and  the  Feast  of  Harvest,  the  first-fruits  of  thy  labors, 
which  thou  hast  sown  in  thy  field  : — and  the  feast  of  In- 
gathering, which  is  in  the  end  of  the  year,  when  thou 
hast  gathered  in  thy  labors  out  of  the  field."2 

Such  then  were  the  three  great  annual  feasts.  The 
first,  in  the  month  Abib,  which  was  the  Passover.  The 
second,  which  was  the  Feast  of  Weeks.  The  third,  the 
Feast  of  In-gathering,  when  all  the  fruits,  wine  and  oil,  as 
well  as  corn,  had  been  collected  and  laid  up.  The  season 
of  the  year  at  which  the  first  of  these  occurred  is  all  that 
I  am  anxious  to  settle,  as  bearing  upon  a  coincidence 
which  I  shall  mention  by  and  by.  Now  this  is  deter- 
mined with  sufficient  accuracy  for  my  purpose,  by  the 
second  of  the  three  being  the  Feast  of  Harvest,  and  the 
fact  that  the  interval  between  the  first  and  second  was 

1  Deut.  TXV.  18.  2  Exod.  xxiii.  14. 


76  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

just  seven  weeks:1  "And  ye  shall  count  unto  you  from 
the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,"  (this  was  the  Sabbath  of 
the  Passover,)  "  from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf 
of  the  wave-offering  ;  seven  Sabbaths  shall  be  complete. 
Even  unto  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  Sabbath  shall  ye 
number  fifty  days,  and  ye  shall  offer  a  new  meat-offering 
unto  the  Lord.  Ye  shall  bring  out  of  your  habitations 
two  wave-loaves,  of  two  tenth-deals,  they  shall  be  of  fine 
flour,  they  shall  be  baken  with  leaven.  They  are  the 
first-fruits  unto  the  Lord." 

At  the  Feast  of  Weeks,  therefore,  the  corn  was  ripe  and 
just  gathered,  for  then  were  the  first-fruits  to  be  offered,  in 
the  loaves  made  out  of  the  new  corn.  If  then  the  wheat 
was  in  this  state  at  the  second  great  festival,  it  must  have 
been  very  far  from  ripe  at  the  Passover,  which  was  seven 
weeks  earlier ;  and  the  wave-sheaf,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  to  be  offered  at  the  Passover,  must  have  been 
of  some  grain  which  came  in  before  wheat — it  was  in  fact 
barley.*  Now  does  not  this  agree  in  a  remarkable,  but 
most  incidental  manner,  with  a  circumstance  mentioned 
in  the  description  of  the  Plague  of  the  Hail  ?  The  hail,  it 
is  true,  was  sent  some  little  time  previous  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  first-born,  or  the  date  of  the  Passover,  for  the 
Plague  of  Locusts  and  the  Plague  of  Darkness  intervened, 
but  it  was  evidently  only  a  little  time  ;  for  Moses  being 
eighty  years  old  when  he  went  before  Pharaoh,3  and  hav- 
ing walked  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,4  and  being  only 
a  hundred  and  twenty  years  old  when  he  died,5  it  is  plain 
that  he  could  have  lost  very  little  time  by  the  delay  of  the 
plagues  in  Egypt,  the  period  of  his  life  being  filled  up 
without  any  allowance  for  such  delay.  I  mention  this, 
because  it  will  be  seen  that  the  argument  requires  the 

1  Lev.  xxiii.  15.  2  See  Ruth  ii.  23.  3  Exod.  vii.  7. 

<  Joshua  v.  6.  s  Deut.  xxxiv.  7. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES,  77 

time  of  the  hail  and  that  of  the  death  of  the  first-born  (or 
in  other  words  the  Passover)  to  be  nearly  the  same.  Now 
the  state  of  the  crops  in  Egypt  at  the  period  of  the  hail 
we  happen  to  know — was  it  then  such  as  wre  might  have 
reason  to  expect  from  the  state  of  the  crops  of  Judea  at  or 
near  the  same  season  ? — i.  e.  the  barley  ripe,  the  wheat 
not  ripe  by  several  weeks  ? 

It  is  fortunate,  inasmuch  as  it  involves  a  point  of.  evi- 
dence, that  one  of  the  Plagues  chanced  to  be  that  of  Hail 
— for  it  is  the  only  one  of  them  all  of  a  nature  to  give  us 
a  clue  to  the  time  of  year  when  they  came  to  pass,  and 
this  it  does  in  the  most  casual  manner  imaginable,  for  the 
mention  of  the  hail  draws  from  the  historian  who  records 
it  the  remark,  that  "  the  flax  and  the  barley  were  smitten, 
for  the  barley  was  in  the  ear  and  the  flax  was  boiled  ;  but 
the  wheat  and  the  rye  were  not  smitten,  for  they  were  not 
grown  up,"  (or  rather  perhaps,  were  not  out  of  sheath.1) 
Now  this  is  precisely  such  a  degree  of  forwardness  as  we 
should  have  respectively  assigned  to  the  barley  and  wheat 
— deducing  our  conclusion  from  the  simple  circumstance 
that  the  seasons  in  Egypt  do  not  greatly  differ  from  those 
of  Judea,  and  that  in  the  latter  country  wheat  was  ripe 
and  just  gathered  at  the  Feast  of  Weeks,  barley  just  fit 
for  putting  the  sickle  into  fifty  days  sooner,  or  at  the  Pass- 
over, which  nearly  answered  to  the  time  of  the  hail.  Yet 
so  far  from  obvious  is  this  point  of  harmony,  that  nothing 
is  more  easy  than  to  mistake  it ;  rily,  nothing  more  likely 
than  that  we  should  even  at  first  suspect  Moses  himself  to 
have  been  out  in  his  reckoning,  and  thus  to  find  a  knot 
instead  of  an  argument.  For  on  reading  the  following 
passage,2  where  the  rule  is  given  for  determining  the  sec- 
ond feast,  we  might  on  the  instant  most  naturally  suppose 

*  Eiod.  ix.  32.  2  Deut.  xvi.  9. 


78  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    I. 

that  the  great  wheat-harvest  of  Judea  was  in  the  month 
Abib,  at  the  Passover — "  Seven  weeks  shalt  thou  number 
unto  thee,  begin  to  number  the  seven  weeks  from  such 
time  as  ^thou  beginnest  to  put  the  sickle  to  the  corn." 
Now  this  "  putting  the  sickle  to  the  corn  "  is  at  once  per- 
ceived to  be  at  the  Passover  when  the  wave-sheaf  was 
offered,  the  ceremony  from  which  we  see  the  Feast  of 
Weeks  was  measured  and  fixed.  Yet  had  the  whecit- 
harvest  been  here  actually  meant,  it  would  have  been 
impossible  to  reconcile  Moses  with  himself;  for  he  would 
then  have  been  representing  the  wheat  to  be  ripe  in  Judea 
at  a  season  when,  as  we  had  elsewhere  gathered  from  him, 
it  was  not  grown  up  or  out  of  the  sheath  in  Egypt.  But 
if  the  sickle  was  to  be  put  into  some  grain  much  earlier 
than  wheat,  such  as  barley,  and  if  the  barley-harvest  is 
here  alluded  to  as  falling  in  with  the  Passover,  and  not 
the  wheat-harvest,  then  all  is  clear,  intelligible,  and  free 
from  difficulty. 

In  a  word  then  my  argument  is — that  at  the  Passover 
the  barley  in  Judea  was  ripe,  but  that  the  wheat  was  not, 
seven  weeks  having  yet  to  elapse  before  the  first-fruits  of 
the  loaves  could  be  offered.  This  I  collect  from  the  history 
of  the  Great  Jewish  Festivals.  Again,  that  at  the  Plague 
of  Hail  (which  corresponds  with  the  time  of  the  Passover 
to  a  few  days),  the  barley  in  Egypt  was  smitten  being  in 
the  ear,  but  that  the  wheat  was  not  smitten,  not  being  yet 
boiled.  This  I  collect  from  the  history  of  the  Great  Egyp- 
tian Plagues.  The  two  statements  on  being  compared 
together,  agree  together. 

I  cannot  but  consider  this  as  very  far  from  an  unimpor- 
tant coincidence — tending,  as  it  does,  to  give  us  confidence 
in  the  good  faith  of  the  historian,  even  at  a  moment  when 
he  is  telling  of  the  Miracles  of  Egypt,  "the  wondrous 
works  that  were  done  in  the  land  of  Ham."  For,  sup- 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  79 

ported  by  this  circumstantial  evidence,  which,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  cannot  lie,  I  feel  that  I  have  very  strong  reason  for 
believing  that  a  hail-storm  there  actually  was,  as  Moses 
asserts ;  that  the  season  of  the  year  to  which  he  assigns 
it,  was  the  season  when  it  did  in  fact  happen  ;  that  the 
crops  were  really  in  the  state  in  which  he  represents 
them  to  have  been — more  I  cannot  prove — for  further  my 
test  will  not  reach.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  miracles  to 
admit  of  its  immediate  application  to  themselves.  But 
when  I  see  the  ordinary  circumstances  which  attend  upon 
them,  and  which  are  most  closely  combined  with  them, 
yielding  internal  evidence  of  truth,  I  am  apt  to  think  that 
these  in  a  great  measure  vouch  for  the  truth  of  the  rest. 
Indeed,  in  all  common  cases,  even  in  judicial  cases  of  life 
and  death,  the  corroboration  of  the  evidence  of  an  un- 
impeached  witness  in  one  or  two  particulars  is  enough  to 
decide  a  jury  that  it  is  worthy  of  credit  in  every  other  par- 
ticular— that  it  may  be  safely  acted  upon  in  the  most  aw- 
ful and  responsible  of  all  human  decisions. 


XVII. 

THE  argument  which  I  have  next  to  produce  has  been 
urged  by  Dr.  Graves,1  though  others  had  noticed  it  before 
him  ;2  I  shall  not,  however,  scruple  to  introduce  it  here  in 
its  order,  connected  as  it  is  with  several  more,  all  relating 
to  the  economy  of  the  camp.  The  incident  on  which  it 
turns  is  trifling  in  itself,  but  nothing  can  be  more  charac- 
teristic of  truth.  On  the  day  when  Moses  set  up  the 
Tabernacle  and  anointed  and  sanctified  it,  the  princes  of 
the  tribes  made  an  offering  consisting  of  six  waggons  and 

1  On  the  Pentateuch,  Vol.  I.  p.  111. 

2  See  Dr.  Patrick  on  Numb.  vii.  7,  8 


80  THE   VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

twelve  oxen.  These  are  accordingly  assigned  to  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Tabernacle  :  "And  Moses  gave  them  unto  the 
Levites  ;  Two  waggons  and  four  oxen  he  gave  unto  the 
sons  of  Gershon  according  to  their  service,  and  four  wag- 
gons and  eight  oxen  he  gave  unto  the  sons  of  Merari  ac- 
cording to  their  service."1  Now  whence  this  unequal  di- 
vision ?  Why  twice  as  many  waggons  and  oxen  to  Merari 
as  to  Gershon  ?  No  reason  is  expressly  avowed.  Yet  if 
I  turn  to  a  former  chapter,  separated  however  from  the  one 
which  has  supplied  this  quotation,  by  sundry  and  divers 
details  of  other  matters,  I  am  able  to  make  out  a  very 
good  reason  for  myself.  For  there,  amongst  the  instruc- 
tions given  to  the  families  of  the  Levites,  as  to  the  shares 
they  had  severally  to  take  in  removing  the  Tabernacle 
from  place  to  place,  I  find  that  the  sons  of  Gershon  had  to 
bear  "  the  curtains,"  and  the  "  Tabernacle"  itself,  (i.  e.  the 
linen  of  which  it  was  made),  and  "  its  covering,  and  the 
covering  of  badgers'  skins  that  was  above  upon  it,  and  the 
hanging  for  the  door,"  and  "  the  hangings  of  the  court,  and 
the  hanging  for  the  door  of  the  gate  of  the  court,"  and 
"  their  cords,  and  all  the  instruments  of  their  service  ;"2  in 
a  word,  all  the  lighter  part  of  the  furniture  of  the  Taber- 
nacle. But  the  sons  of  Merari  had  to  bear  "  the  boards 
of  the  Tabernacle,  and  the  bars  thereof,  and  the  pillars 
thereof,  and  the  sockets  thereof,  and  the  pillars  of  the  court 
round  about,  and  their  sockets,  and  their  pins,  and  their 
cords,  with  all  their  instruments  ;"3  in  short,  all  the  cum 
brous  and  heavy  part  of  the  materials  of  which  the  frame- 
work of  the  Tabernacle  was  constructed.  And  hence  it  is 
easy  to  see  why  more  oxen  and  waggons  were  assigned  to 
the  one  family  than  to  the  other.  Is  chance  at  the  bottom 
of  all  this?  or,  cunning  contrivance?  or,  truth  and  only 
truth  ? 
i  Numb.  vii.  7,  8.  2  ib.  iv.  25.  3  ib.  iv,  32. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES. 


XVIII. 

IN  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Numbers  we  have 
a  particular  account  of  the  order  of  march  which  was  ob- 
served in  the  Camp  of  Israel  on  one  remarkable  occasion, 
viz.  when  they  broke  up  from  Sinai.  "  In  the  first  place 
went  the  standard  of  the  camp  of  Judah  according  to  their 
armies/'  (v.  14).  Does  this  precedence  of  Judah  agree 
with  any  former  account  of  the  disposition  of  the  armies 
of  Israel  ?  In  the  second  chapter  of  the  same  book  I  read, 
"  on  the  East  side  toward  the  rising  of  the  sun  shall  they 
of  the  standard  of  the  camp  of  Judah  pitch  throughout 
their  armies,"  (v.  3).  All  that  is  to  be  gathered  from  this 
passage  is,  that  Judah  pitched  East  of  the  Tabernacle. 
I  now  turn  to  the  tenth  chapter,  (v.  5,)  and  I  there  find 
amongst  the  orders  given  for  the  signals,  "  when  ye  blow 
an  alarm,  (i.  e.  the  first  alarm,  for  the  others  are  mention- 
ed successively  in  their  turn,)  then  the  camps  that  lie  on 
the  East  parts  shall  go  forward."  But  from  the  last  pas- 
sage it  appears  that  Judah  lay  on  the  East  parts,  there- 
fore when  the  first  alarm  was  blown,  Judah  should  be  the 
tribe  to  move.  Thus  it  is  implied  from  two  passages 
brought  together  from  two  chapters,  separated  by  the  in- 
tervention of  eight  others  relating  to  things  indifferent, 
that  Judah  was  to  lead  in  any  march.  Now  we  see  in  the 
account  of  a  specific  movement  of  the  camp  from  Sinai, 
with  which  I  introduced  these  remarks,  that  on  that  occa- 
sion Judah  did  in  fact  lead.  This  then  is  as  it  should  be. 
The  three  passages  agree  together  as  three  concurring 
witnesses — in  the  mouth  of  these  is  the  word  established. 
Yet  there  is  some  little  intricacy  in  the  details — enough  at 
least  to  leave  room  for  an  inadvertent  slip  in  the  arrange- 


06  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

ments3  whereby  a  fiction  would  have  run  a  risk  of  being 
self-detected. 

Pursue  we  this  inquiry  a  little  further;  for  the  next 
article  of  it  is  perhaps  rather  more  open  to  a  blunder  of 
this  description  than  the  last.  It  may  be  thought  that  the 
leading  tribe,  the  van-guard  of  Israel,  was  an  object  too 
conspicuous  to  be  overlooked  or  misplaced  In  the  18th 
verse  of  the  same  chapter  of  Numbers,  it  is  said,  that  after 
the  first  division  was  gone,  and  the  Tabernacle,  "the 
standard  of  the  camp  of  Reuben  set  forward  according  to 
their  armies." — The  camp  of  Reuben,  therefore,  was  that 
which  moved  second  on  this  occasion.  Does  this  accord 
with  the  position  it  was  elsewhere  said  to  have  occupied  ? 
It  is  obvious  that  a  mistake  might  here  most  readily  have 
crept  in  ;  and  that  if  the  writer  had  not  been  guided  by  a 
real  knowledge  of  the  facts  which  he  was  pretending 
to  describe,  it  is  more  than  probable  he  would  have  be- 
trayed himself.  Turn  we  then  to  the  second  chapter, 
(v.  10,)  where  the  order  of  the  tribes  in  their  tents  is  given, 
and  we  there  find  that  "  on  the  south  side  was  to  be  the 
standard  of  the  camp  of  Reuben,  according  to  their 
armies."  Again,  let  us  turn  to  the  tenth  chapter,  (v.  6,) 
where  the  directions  for  the  signals  are  given,  and  we  are 
there  told,  "  When  ye  blow  the  alarm  the  second  time, 
then  the  camps  on  the  south  side  shall  take  their  journey ;" 
— but  the  passage  last  quoted,  (which  is  far  removed  from 
this.)  informs  us  that  Reuben  was  on  the  south  side  of  the 
Tabernacle ;  the  camp  of  Reuben  therefore  it  was,  which 
was  appointed  to  move  when  the  alarm  was  blown  the 
second  time.  Accordingly  we  see  in  the  description  of  the 
actual  breaking  up  from  Sinai,  with  which  I  set  out,  that 
the  camp  of  Reuben  was  in  fact  the  second  to  move. 
The  same  argument  may  be  followed  up,  and  the  same 
satisfactory  conclusions  obtained  in  the  other  two  campa 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  83 

of  Ephraim  and  Dan  ;  though  here  recourse  must  be  had 
to  the  Septuagint,  of  which  the  text  is  more  full  in  these 
two  latter  instances  than  the  Hebrew  text  of  our  own  ver- 
sion, and  more  full  precisely  upon  those  points  which  are 
wanted  in  evidence.1  On  such  a  trifle  does  the  practica- 
bility of  establishing  an  argument  of  coincidence  turn ; 
and  so  perpetually,  no  doubt,  (were  we  but  aware  of  it,) 
are  we  prevented  from  doing  justice  to  the  veracity  of  the 
writings  of  Moses,  by  the  lack  of  more  abundant  details. 

In  all  this,  it  appears  to  me,  that  without  any  care  or 
circumspection  of  the  historian,  as  to  how  he  should  make 
the  several  parts  of  his  tale  agree  together — without  any 
display  on  the  one  hand,  or  mock  concealment  on  the 
other,  of  a  harmony  to  be  found  in  those  several  parts — 
and  in  the  meantime,  with  ample  scope  for  the  admission 
of  unguarded  mistakes,  by  which  a  mere  impostor  would 
soon  stand  convicted,  the  whole  is  at  unity  with  itself,  and 
the  internal  evidence  resulting  from  it  clear,  precise,  and 
above  suspicion. 


XIX. 

1.  THE  arrangements  of  the  camp  provide  us  with  an- 
other coincidence,  no  less  satisfactory  than  the  last — for  it 
may  be  here  remarked,  that  in  proportion  as  the  history 
of  Moses  descends  to  particulars,  (which  it  does  in  the 
camp,)  in  that  proportion  is  it  fertile  in  the  arguments  of 
which  I  am  at  present  in  search.  It  is  in  general  the 
extreme  brevity  of  the  history,  and  nothing  else,  that, 
baffles  us  in  our  inquiries ;  often  affording  (as  it  does)  a 
hint  which  we  cannot  pursue  for  want  of  details,  and  ex- 

1  Septuagint,  Numb.  3f.  6. 


84  THE    VERACITY   OP    THE  PART  I. 

hibiting  a  glimpse  of  some  corroborative  fact  which  it  a 
vexatious  to  be  so  near  grasping,  and  still  to  be  compelled 
to  relinquish  it. 

In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Numbers  we 
read,  "  Now  Korah  the  son  of  Izhar,  the  son  of  Kohath 
the  son  of  Levi,  and  Dathan  and  Abiram  the  sons  of 
Eliab,  and  On  the  son  of  Peleth,  sons  of  Reuben,  took 
men,  and  they  rose  up  before  Moses  with  certain  of  the 
congregation  of  Israel,  two  hundred  and  fifty  princes  of 
the  assembly,  famous  in  the  congregation,  men  of  renown. 
And  they  gathered  themselves  together  against  Moses  and 
against  Aaron,  and  said  unto  them,  Ye  take  too  much 
upon  you,  seeing  all  the  congregation  are  holy,  every  one 
of  them,  and  the  Lord  is  among  them  j  wherefore  then 
lift  ye  up  yourselves  above  the  congregation  of  the  Lord."1 
Such  is  the  history  of  the  conspiracy  got  up  against  the 
authority  of  the  leaders  of  Israel.  The  principal  parties 
engaged  in  it,  we  see,  were  Korah  of  the  family  of  Kohathj 
and  Dathan,  Abiram,  and  On,  of  the  family  of  Reuben. 
Now  it  is  a  very  curious  circumstance  that  some  thirteen 
chapters  before  this — chapters  occupied  with  matters  of 
quite  another  character — it  is  mentioned  incidentally  that 
"  the  families  of  the  sons  of  Kohath  were  to  pitch  on  the 
side  of  the  Tabernacle  southward."*  And  in  another 
chapter  yet  further  back,  and  as  independent  of  the  latter  as 
the  latter  was  of  the  first,  we  read  no  less  incidentally,  "  on 
the  south  side  (of  the  Tabernacle)  shall  be  the  standard  of 
the  camp  of  Reuben,  according  to  their  armies."3  The 
family  of  Kohath,  therefore,  and  the  family  of  Reuben, 
both  pitched  on  the  same  side  of  the  Tabernacle — they 
were  neighbors,  and  were  therefore  conveniently  situated 
for  taking-  secret  counsel  together.  Surely  this  singular 

i  Numb.  xvi.  1.  a  Ib.  iii.  29.  3  Ib.  fi.  10. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OP    MOSES.  85 

coincidence  comes  of  truth — not  of  accident,  not  of  design ; 
— not  of  accident,  for  how  great  is  the  improbability  that 
such  a  peculiar  propriety  between  the  relative  situations 
of  the  parties  in  the  conspiracy  should  have  been  the  mere 
result  of  chance  ;  when  three  sides  of  the  Tabernacle  were 
occupied  by  the  families  of  the  Levites,  and  all  four  sides 
by  the  families  of  the  tribes,  and  when  combinations 
(arithmetically  speaking),  to  so  great  an  extent  might 
have  been  formed  between  these  in  their  several  members, 
without  the  one  in  question  being  of  the  number.  It  does 
not  come  of  design,  for  the  agreement  is  not  obvious 
enough  to  suit  a  designer's  purpose — it  might  most  easily 
escape  notice: — it  is  indeed  only  to  be  detected  by  the 
juxtaposition  of  several  unconnected  passages  falling  out 
at  long  intervals.  Then,  again,  had  no  such  coincidence 
been  found  at  all ;  had  the  conspirators  been  represented 
as  drawn  together  from  more  distant  parts  of  the  camp, 
from  such  parts  as  afforded  no  peculiar  facilities  for  leaguing 
together,  no  objection  whatever  would  have  lain  agsrinst 
the  accuracy  of  the  narrative  on  that  account.  The  argu- 
ment, indeed,  for  its  veracity  would  then  have  been  lost, 
but  that  would  have  been  all ;  no  suspicion  whatever 
against  its  veracity  would  have  been  thereby  incurred. 

2.  But  there  is  yet  another  feature  of  truth  in  this 
same  most  remarkable  portion  of  Mosaic  history ;  and  this 
has  been  enlarged  upon  by  Dr.  Graves.1  I  shall  not  how- 
ever scruple  to  touch  upon  it  here,  both  because  I  do  not 
take  quite  the  same  view  of  it  throughout,  and  because 
this  incident  combines  with  the  one  1  have  just  brought 
forward,  and  thus  acquires  a  value  beyond  its  own,  from 
being  a  second  of  its  kind  arising  out  of  one  and  the  same 
event — the  united  value  of  two  incidental  marks  of  truth 

i  On  the  Pentateuch,  Vol.  I.  p.  155. 

8 


86  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

being  more  than  the  sum  of  their  separate  values.  In« 
deed,  these  two  instances  of  consistency  without  design, 
taken  together,  hedge  in  the  main  transaction  on  the  right 
hand  and  on  the  left,  so  as  almost  to  close  up  every  avenue 
through  which  suspicion  could  insinuate  the  rejection  of  il. 
On  a  common  perusal  of  the  whole  history  of  this  re- 
bellion, in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Numbers,  the  impres- 
sion left  would  be,  that,  in  the  punishment  of  Korah,  Da- 
than,  and  Abiram,  there  was  no  distinction  or  difference  ; 
that  their  tents  and  all  the  men  that  appertained  unto 
Korah,  and  all  their  goods,  were  destroyed  alike.  Never- 
theless, ten  chapters  after,  when  the  number  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  is  taken,  and  when  in  the  course  of  the  num- 
bering, the  names  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  occur,  there  is 
added  the  following  incidental  memorandum — "  This  is 
that  Dathan  and  Abiram  who  were  famous  in  the  congre- 
gation, who  strove  against  Moses  and  against  Aaron,  in 
the  company  of  Korah,  when  they  strove  against  the 
Lord."  Then  the  death  which  they  died  is  mentioned,  and 
last  of  all  it  is  said,  "  Notwithstanding  the  children  of 
Korah  died  not"1  This,  at  first  sight,  undoubtedly  looks 
like  a  contradiction  of  what  had  gone  before.  Again,  then, 
let  us  turn  back  to  the  16th  chapter,  and  see  whether  we 
have  read  it  right.  Now,  though  upon  a  second  perusal  I 
still  find  no  express  assertion  that  there  was  any  differ- 
ence in  the  fate  of  these  several  rebellious  households,  I 
think  upon  a  close  inspection  I  do  find  (what  answers  my 
purpose  better)  some  difference  implied.  For,  in  verse  27, 
we  are  told,  "  So  they  gat  up  from  the  Tabernacle  of  Ko- 
rah, Dathan,  and  Abiram,  on  every  side  ;" — i.  e.  from  a 
Tabernacle  which  these  men  in  their  political  rebellion  and 
religious  dissent  (for  they  went  together)  had  set  up  in 

1  Numb.  xxvi.  :  1. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    J>F    MOSES.  87 

common  for  themselves  arid  their  adherents,  in  opposition 
to  the  great  Tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  "  And  Da- 
than  and  Abiram,"  it  is  added,  "  came  out  and  stood  in  the 
door  of  their  tents ;  and  their  wives,  and  their  sons,  and 
their  little  children."  Here  we  perceive  that  mention  is 
made  of  the  sons  of  Dathan  and  the  sons  of  Abiram,  but 
not  of  the  sons  of  Korah.  So  that  the  victims  of  the  ca- 
tastrophe about  to  happen,  it  should  seem  from  this  ac- 
count too,  were  indeed  the  sons  of  Dathan  and  the  sons 
of  Abiram,  but  not  (in  all  appearance)  the  sons  of  Korah. 
Neither  is  this  difference  difficult  to  account  for.  The  Le- 
vites  pitching  nearer  to  the  Tabernacle  than  the  other 
tribes,  forming,  in  fact,  three  sides  of  the  inner  square, 
whilst  the  others  formed  the  four  sides  of  the  outer,  it 
would  necessarily  follow,  that  the  dwelling-tent  of  Korah, 
a  Levite,  would  be  at  some  distance  from  the  dwelling- 
tents  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  JReubenites,  and,  as  brothers, 
probably  contiguous  ;  at  such  a  distance  at  least,  as  might 
serve  to  secure  it  from  being  involved  in  the  destruction 
which  overwhelmed  the  others ;  for,  that  the  desolation 
was  very  limited  in  extent,  seems  a  fact  conveyed  by  the 
terms  of  the  warning — "  Depart  from  the  tents  of  these 
wicked  men,"  (i.  e.  the  tabernacle  which  the  three  leaders 
had  reared  in  common,  and  the  two  dwelling-tents  of  Da- 
than and  Abiram,1)  as  if  the  danger  was  confined  to  the 
vicinity  of  those  tents. 

In  this  single  event,  then,  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Dathan, 
and  Abiram,  I  discover  two  instances  of  coincidence  with- 
out design,  each  independent  of  the  other — the  one,  in  the 
conspiracy  being  laid  amongst  parties  whom  I  know,  from 
information  elsewhere  given,  to  have  dwelt  on  the  same 
side  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  therefore  to  have  been  conve- 

»  See  chap.  xvi.  verse  27.    An  attention  to  this  verse  shows  these  to 
.  nave  been  the  tents  meant. 


88  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

niently  situated  for  such  a  plot — the  other,  in  the  different 
lots  of  the  families  of  the  conspirators,  a  difference  of  which 
there  is  just  hint  enough  in  the  direct  history  of  it,  to  be 
brought  out  by  a  casual  assertion  to  that  effect  in  a  subse- 
quent casual  allusion  to  the  conspiracy,  and  only  just  hint 
enough  for  this — a  difference,  too,  which  accords  very  re- 
markably with  the  relative  situations  of  those  several  fam- 
ilies in  their  respective  tents. 

But  if  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  be  by  this  means 
established,  above  all  dispute,  as  a  matter  of  fact — if  the 
death  of  some  of  the  families  of  the  conspirators,  and  the 
escape  of  others,  be  also  by  the  same  means  established, 
above  all  dispute,  as  another  matter  of  fact — if  the  testi- 
mony of  Moses,  after  having  been  submitted  to  a  test  which 
he  could  never  have  contemplated  or  been  provided  against 
turn  out  in  these  particulars  at  least  to  be  quite  worthy  of 
credit — to  what  are  we  led  on  ?  Is  not  the  historian  still 
the  same :  is  he  not  still  treating  of  the  same  incident, 
when  he  informs  us  that  the  punishment  of  this  rebellious 
spirit  was  a  miraculous  punishment?  that  the  ground 
clave  asunder  that  was  under  the  ringleaders,  and  swal- 
lowed them  up,  and  their  houses,  and  all  the  men  that  ap- 
pertained unto  them,  and  all  their  goods  ;  so  that  they, 
and  all  that  appertained  unto  them,  went  down  alive  into 
the  pit,  and  the  earth  closed  upon  them,  and  they  per- 
ished from  among  the  congregation? 


XX. 

THE  arrangements  of  the  camp  suggest  one  point  of 
coincidence  more,  not  perhaps  so  remarkable  as  the  last, 
yet  enough  so  to  be  admitted  amongst  others  as  an  indi- 
tation  of  truth  in  the  history. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  89 

In  the  32nd  chapter  of  Numbers,  (v.  1,)  it  is  said, 
"  Now  the  children  of  Reuben,  and  the  children  of  Gad, 
had  a  very  great  multitude  of  cattle  ;  and  when  they  saw 
the  land  of  Jazer,  and  the  land  of  Gilead,  that  behold  the 
place  was  a  place  for  cattle,  the  children  of  Gad  and  the 
children  of  Reuben  came  and  spake  unto  Moses,  and  to 
Eleazer  the  priest,  and  unto  the  princes  of  the  congrega- 
tion, saying,  Ataroth,  and  Dibon,  and  Jazer,  and  Nimrah, 
and  Heshbon,  and  Elealeh,  and  Shebam,  and  Nebo,  and 
Beon,  even  the  country  which  the  Lord  smote  before  the 
congregation  of  Israel,  is  a  land  for  cattle,  and  thy  servants 
have  cattle;  wherefore,  said  they,  if  we  have  received 
grace  in  thy  sight,  let  this  land  be  given  unto  thy  servants 
for  a  possession,  and  bring  us  not  over  Jordan." 

Here  was  a  petition  from  the  tribes  of  Reuben  and  of 
Gad,  to  have  a  portion  assigned  them  on  the  east  side  of 
Jordan,  rather  than  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  But  how 
came  the  request  to  be  made  conjointly  by  the  children  of 
Reuben  and  the  children  of  Gad  ? — Was  it  a  mere  acci- 
dent?— Was  it  the  simple  circumstance  that  these  two 
tribes  being  richer  in  cattle  than  the  rest,  and  seeing  that 
the  pasturage  was  good  on  the  east  side  of  Jordan,  desired 
on  that  account  only  to  establish  themselves  there  to- 
gether, and  to  separate  from  their  brethren?  Perhaps 
something  more  than  either.  For  I  read  in  the  2nd  chap- 
ter of  Numbers,  (v.  10. 14,)  that  the  camp  of  Reuben  was  on 
the  south  side  of  the  tabernacle,  and  that  the  tribe  of  Gad 
formed  a  division  of  the  camp  of  Reuben.  It  may  very 
well  be  imagined,  therefore,  that  after  having  shared  to- 
gether the  perils  of  the  long  and  arduous  campaign  through 
the  wilderness,  these  two  tribes,  in  addition  to  considera- 
tions about  their  cattle,  feeling  the  strong  bond  of  well-tried 
companionship  in  hardships  and  in  arms,  were  very  likely 
to  act  with  one  comimn  council,  and  to  have  a  desire  still 

8*  ' 


90  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

to  dwell  beside  one  another,  after  the  toil  of  battle,  as  quiet 
neighbors  in  a  peaceful  country  where  they  were  finally 
to  set  up  their  rest.  Here  again  is  an  incident,  I  think, 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  most  refined  impostor  in  the 
world.  What  vigilance,  however  alive  to  suspicion,  and 
prepared  for  it — what  cunning,  however  bent  upon  giving 
credibility  to  a  worthless  narrative,  by  insidiously  scatter- 
ing through  it  marks  of  truth  which  should  turn  up  from 
time  to  time  and  mislead  the  reader,  would  have  suggested 
one  so  very  trivial,  so  very  far  fetched,  as  a  desire  of  two 
tribes  to  obtain  their  inheritance  together  on  the  same 
side  of  the  river,  simply  upon  the  recollection  that  such  a 
desire  would  fall  in  very  naturally  with  their  having 
pitched  their  tents  side  by  side  in  their  previous  march 
through  the  wilderness  ? 


XXI. 

SOME  circumstances  in  the  history  of  Balak  and  Balaam 
supply  me  with  another  argument  for  the  veracity  of  the 
Pentateuch.  But  before  I  proceed  to  those  which  I  have 
more  immediately  in  my  eye,  I  would  observe,  that  the  sim- 
ple fact  of  a  King  of  Moab  knowing  that  a  Prophet  dwelt 
in  Mesopotamia,  in  the  mountains  of  the  East,  a  country 
so  distant  from  his  own,  in  itself  supplies  a  point  of  harmony 
favoring  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  narrative.  For  I  am 
led  by  it  to  remark  this,  that  very  many  hints  may  be  picked 
up  in  the  writings  of  Moses,  all  concurring  to  establish  one 
position,  viz.  that  there  was  a  communication  amongst  the 
scattered  inhabitants  of  the  earth  in  those  early  times,  a 
circulation  of  intelligence,  scarcely  to  be  expected,  and  not 
easily  to  be  accounted  for.  Whether  the  caravans  of  mer- 
chants which,  as  we  have  seen,  traversed  the  deserts  of  the 


PART    I,  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  91 

East — whether  the  unsettled  and  vagrant  habits  of  the 
descendants  of  Ishmael  and  Esau,  which  singularly  fitted 
them  for  being  the  carriers  of  news,  and  with  whom  the 
great  wilderness  was  alive — whether  the  pastoral  life  of 
the  Patriarchs,  and  of  those  who  more  immediately  sprung 
from  them,  which  led  them  to  constant  changes  of  place 
in  search  of  herbage — whether  the  frequent  petty  wars 
which  were  waged  amongst  lawless  neighbors — whether 
the  necessary  separation  of  families,  the  parent  hive  cast- 
ing its  little  colony  forth  to  settle  on  some  distant  land, 
and  the  consequent  interest  and  curiosity  which  either 
branch  would  feel  for  the  fortunes  of  the  other — whether 
these  were  the  circumstances  that  encouraged  arid  main- 
tained an  intercourse  among  mankind  in  spite  of  the 
numberless  obstacles  which  must  then  have  opposed  it, 
and  which  we  might  have  imagined  would  have  inter- 
cepted it  altogether ;  or  whether  any  other  channels  of  in- 
telligence were  open  of  which  we  are  in  ignorance,  sure  it 
is,  that  such  intercourse  seems  to  have  existed  to  a  very, 
considerable  extent. 

Thus,  far  as  Abraham  was  removed  from  the  branch 
of  his  family  which  remained  in  Mesopotamia,  "  it  came 
to  pass  that  it  was  told  him,  saying,  Behold,  Milcah,  she 
hath  also  borne  children  unto  thy  brother  Nahor ;"  and 
their  names  are  then  added.1  In  like  manner  Isaac  and 
Rebekah  appear  in'  their  turn  to  have  known  that  Laban 
had  marriageable  daughters  ;2 — and  Jacob,  when  he  came 
back  to  Canaan  after  his  long  sojourn  in  Haran,  seems  to 
have  known  that  Esau  was  alive  and  prosperous,  and  that 
he  lived  at  Seir,  whither  he  sent  a  message  to  him  ;3 — and 
Deborah,  Rebekah's  nurse,  who  went  with  her  to  Canaan 
»n  her  marriage,  is  found  many  years  afterwards  in  the 

i  Gen.  xxii.  20.  2  ib.  xxviii.  2.  s  Jb.  ixxii.  3. 


92  THE    VKRACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

family  of  Jacob,  for  she  dies  in  his  camp  as  he  was  return- 
ing from  Haran,1  and  therefore  must  have  been  sent  back 
again  meanwhile,  for  some  purpose  or  other,  from  Canaan 
to  Haran  ; — and  at  Elim,  in  the  desert,  the  Israelites  dis- 
cover twelve  wells  of  water  and  threescore  and  ten  palms, 
the  numbers,  no  doubt,  not  accidental,  but  indicating  that 
some  persons  had  frequented  this  secluded  spot  acquainted 
with  the  sons  and  grandsons  of  Jacob  ;2 — and  Jethro,  the 
father-in-law  of  Moses,  is  said  "  to  have  heard  of  all  that 
God  had  done  for  Moses  and  for  Israel  his  people."3  And 
when  Moses,  on  his  march,  sends  a  message  to  Edom,  it 
is  worded,  "  thou  knowest  all  the  travail  that  hath  befallen 
us — how  our  fathers  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  we  have 
dwelt  in  Egypt  a  long  time  ;"4  together  with  many  more 
particulars,  all  of  which  Moses  reckons  matters  of  notoriety 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  desert.  And  on  another  occasion 
he  speaks  of  "  their  having  heard  that  the  Lord  was 
among  his  people,  that  he  was  seen  by  them  face  to  face, 
that  his  cloud  stood  over  them,  and  that  he  went  before 
them  by  day-time  in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  and  in  a  pillar  of 
fire  by  night."5  And  this  may,  in  fact,  account  for  the 
vestiges  of  so  many  laws  which  we  meet  with  throughout 
the  East,  even  in  this  very  early  period,  as  held  in  common 
— and  the  many  just  notions  of  the  Deity,  mixed  up, 
indeed,  with  much  alloy,  which  so  many  nations  possessed 
in  common — and  the  rites  and  customs,  whether  civil  or 
sacred,  to  which  in  so  many  points  they  conformed  in 
common.  Now  all  these  unconnected  matters  hint  at  this 
one  circumstance,  that  intelligence  travelled  through  the 
tribes  of  the  Desert  more  freely  and  rapidly  than  might 
have  been  thought,  and  the  consistency  with  which  the 

•  Gen.  xxxv.  8.  2  Exod.  xv.  27.  3  Ib.  xviii.  1. 

<  Numb.  xx.  15.  s  ib.  xiv,  14. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  93 

writings  of  Moses  imply  such  a  fact,  (for  they  neither  affirm 
it,  nor  trouble  themselves  about  explaining  it,)  is  a  feature 
of  truth  in  those  writings. 


XXII. 

THROUGH  some  or  other  of  the  channels  of  information 
enumerated  in  the  last  paragraph,  Balak,  King  of  Moab, 
is  aware  of  the  existence  of  a  Prophet  at  Pethor,  and 
sends  for  him.     It  is  not  unlikely,  indeed,  that  the  Moab- 
ites,  who  were  the  children  of  Lot,  should  have  still  main- 
tained a  communication  with   the  original  stock  of  all 
which  continued  to  dwell  in  Aram  or  Mesopotamia.     Nei- 
ther is  it  unlikely  that  Pethor,  which  was  in  that  country,1 
the  country  whence  Abraham  emigrated,  and  where  Nahor 
and  that  branch  of  Terah's  family  remained,  should  pos- 
sess a  Prophet  of  the  true  God.     Nor  is  it  unlikely  again, 
that,  living  in  the  midst  of  idolaters,  Balaam  should  in  a 
degree  partake  of  the  infection,  as  Laban  had  done  before 
him  in  the  same  country ;    and  that  whilst  he  acknowl- 
edged the  Lord  for  his  God,  and  offered  his  victims  by 
sevens,  (as   some   patriarchal  tradition  perhaps   directed 
him,2)  he  should  have  had  recourse  to  enchantments  also 
— mixing  the  profane  and  sacred,  as  Laban  did  the  wor- 
ship of  his  images  with  the  worship  of  his  Maker.     All 
this  is  in  character.     Now  it  was  not  Balak  alone  who 
sent  the  embassy  to  Balaam.     He  was  but  King  of  the 
Moabites,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  Midian.     With  the 
elders  of  Midian,  however,  he  consulted,  they  being  as 
much  interested  as  himself  in  putting  a  stop  to  the  tri- 
umphant march  of  Israel.     Accordingly  we  find  that  the 

i  Numb,  xxiii.  7.  2  See  Job  xlii.  8. 


94  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

mission  to  the  Prophet  came  from  the  two  people  conjoint- 
ly ; — "  the  elders  of  Moab  and  the  elders  of  Midian  de- 
parted, with  the  rewards  of  divination  in  their  hand."1  In 
the  remainder  of  this  interview,  and  in  the  one  which 
succeeded  it,  all  mention  of  Midian  is  dropped,  and  the 
"  princes  of  Balak,"  and  the  "  servants  of  Balak,"  are  the 
titles  given  to  the  messengers.  And  when  Balaam  at 
length  consents  to  accept  their  invitation,  it  is  to  Moab,  the 
kingdom  of  Balak,  that  he  comes,  and  he  is  received  by 
the  King  at  one  of  his  own  border-cities  near  the  river  of 
Arnon.  Then  follows  the  Prophet's  fruitless  struggle  to 
curse  the  people  whom  God  had  blessed,  and  the  conse- 
quent disappointment  of  the  King,  who  bids  him  "  flee  to 
his  place,  the  Lord  having  kept  him  back  from  honor ;" 
"  and  Balaam  rose  up,"  the  history  concludes,  "  and  went 
and  returned  to  his  place,  and  Balak  also  went  his  way."2 
So  they  parted  in  mutual  dissatisfaction. 

Hitherto,  then,  although  the  elders  of  Midian  were  con- 
cerned in  inviting  the  Prophet  from  Mesopotamia,  it  does 
not  appear  that  they  had  any  intercourse  whatever  with 
him  on  their  own  account — Balak  and  the  Moabites  had 
engrossed  all  his  attention.  The  subject  is  now  discon- 
tinued :  Balaam  disappears,  gone,  as  we  may  suppose,  to 
his  own  country  again,  to  Pethor,  in  Mesopotamia,  for  he 
had  expressly  said  on  parting,  "  Behold,  I  go  unto  my 
people"3  Meanwhile  the  historian  pursues  his  onward 
course,  and  details,  through  several  long  chapters,  the 
abandoned  profligacy  of  the  Israelites,  the  numbering  of 
them  according  to  their  families,  the  method  by  which 
their  portions  were  to  be  assigned  in  the  land  of  promise, 
the  laws  of  inheritance,  the  choice  and  appointment  of  a 
successor  a  series  of  offerings  and  festivals  of  various 

i  Numb,  xxi,  7.  «  ib.  xxiv.  25.  3  ib.  xxiv.  14, 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  1J5 

kinds,  more  or  less  important,  the  nature  and  obligation 
of  vows,  and  the  different  complexion  they  assumed  under 
different  circumstances  enumerated,  and  then,  (as  it  often 
happens  in  the  history  of  Moses,  where  a  battle  or  a  rebel- 
lion perhaps  interrupts  a  catalogue  of  rites  and  cere- 
monies,) then,  I  say,  comes  an  account  of  an  attack  made 
upon  the  Midianites  in  revenge  for  their  having  seduced 
the  people  of  Israel  by  the  wiles  of  their  women.  So 
"  they  slew  the  kings  of  Midian,  besides  the  rest  of  them 
that  were  slain,  viz.  Evi,  and  Rekem,  and  Zur,  and  Hur, 
and  Reba,  five  kings  of  Midian  ;"  and  lastly,  there  is  ad- 
ded, what  we  might  not  perhaps  have  been  prepared  for, 
"  Balaam  also,  the  son  of  Beor,  they  slew  with  the 
sword"1 

It  seems  then,  but  how  incidentally  !  that  the  Prophet 
did  not,  after  all,  return  to  Mesopotamia,  as  we  had  sup- 
posed. Now  this  coincides  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner 
with  the  circumstances  under  which,  we  have  seen,  Ba- 
laam was  invited  from  Pethor.  For  the  deputation,  which 
then  waited  on  him,  did  not  consist  of  Moabites  exclusively, 
but  of  Midianites  also.  When  dismissed,  therefore,  in 
disgust  by  the  Moabites,  he  would  not  return  to  Mesopota- 
mia until  he  had  paid  his  visit  to  the  Midianites •,  who 
were  equally  concerned  in  bringing  him  where  he  was. 
Had  the  details  of  his  achievements  in  Midian  been  given, 
as  those  in  Moab  are  given,  they  might  have  been  as  nu- 
merous, as  important,  and  as  interesting.  One  thing  only, 
however,  we  are  told,  that  by  the  counsel  which  he  sug- 
gested during  this  visit  concerning  the  matter  of  Peor,  and 
which  he  probably  thought  was  the  most  likely  counsel  to 
alienate  the  Israelites  from  God,  and  to  make  Him  curse 
instead  of  blessing  them,  he  caused  the  children  of  Israel 

1  Numb.  MIL  8. 


%  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I 

to  commit  the  trespass  he  anticipated,  and  to  fall  into  the 
trap  which  he  had  provided  for  them.  Unluckily  for  him, 
however,  his  stay  amongst  the  Midianites  was  unseason- 
ably protracted,  and  Moses  coming  upon  them,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  command  of  God,  slew  them  and  him  together. 
The  undesigned  coincidence  lies  in  the  Elders  of  Moab 
and  the  Elders  of  Midian  going  to  Balaam  ;  in  Midian 
being  then  mentioned  no  more,  till  Balaam,  having  been 
sent  away  from  Moab,  apparently  that  he  might  go  home, 
is  subsequently  found  a  corpse  amongst  the  slaughtered 
Midianites. 


XXIII. 

IN  the  consequences  which  followed  from  this  evil  coun- 
sel of  Balaam,  I  fancy  I  discover  another  instance  of  coin- 
cidence  without  design.  It  is  this. — As  a  punishment  for 
the  sin  of  the  Israelites  in  partaking  of  the  worship  of 
Baal-Peor,  God  is  said  to  have  sent  a  plague  upon  them. 
Who  were  the  leaders  in  this  defection  from  the  Almighty, 
and  in  this  shameless  adoption  of  the  abomination  of  the 
Moabites,  is  not  disclosed — nor  indeed  whether  any  one 
tribe  were  more  guilty  before  God  than  the  rest — only  it 
is  said  that  the  number  of  "  those  who  died  in  the  Plague 
was  twenty  and  four  thousand."1  I  read,  however,  that 
the  name  of  a  certain  Israelite  that  was  slain  on  that  oc- 
casion, (who  in  the  general  humiliation  and  mourning,  de- 
fied, as  it  were,  the  vengeance  of  the  Most  High,  and  de- 
termined, at  all  hazards,  to  continue  in  the  lusts  to  which 
the  idolatry  had  led,)  I  read,  I  say,  that  "  the  name  of 
this  Israelite  that  was  slain,  even  that  was  slain  with  the 

1  Numb.  xxv.  9. 


PA11T    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  97 

Midianitish  woman,  was  Zimri,  the  son  of  Salu,  a  prince 
of  a  chief  house  among  the  Simeonites."1  And  very  great 
importance  is  attached  to  this  act  of  summary  punishment 
— as  though  this  one  offender,  a  prince  of  a  chief  house 
of  his  tribe,  was  a  representative  of  the  offence  of  many — 
for  on  Phinehas,  in  his  holy  indignation,  putting  him  to 
instant  death,  the  Plague  ceased,  "  So  the  Plague  was 
stayed  from  the  children  of  Israel."2 

Shortly  after  this  a  census  of  the  people  is  taken.  All 
the  tribes  are  numbered,  and  a  separate  account  is  given 
of  each.  Now  in  this  I  observe  the  following  particular — 
that,  although  on  comparing  this  census  with  the  one 
which  had  been  made  nearly  forty  years  before  at  Sinai,  it 
appears  that  the  majority  of  the  tribes  had  meanwhile  in- 
creased in  numbers,  and  none  of  them  very  materially  di- 
minished,3 the  tribe  of  Simeon  had  lost  almost  two-thirds 
of  its  whole  body,  being  reduced  from  "fifty-nine  thousand 
and  three  hundred,"4  to  "  twenty-two  thousand  and  two 
hundred."5  No  reason  is  assigned  for  this  extraordinary 
depopulation  of  this  one  tribe — no  hint  whatever  is  given 
as  to  its  eminence  in  suffering  above  its  fellows.  Nor  can. 
I  pretend  to  say  that  we  can  detect  the  reason  with  an,y 
certainty  of  being  right,  though  the  fact  speaks  for  itself 
that  the  tribe  of  Simeon  must  have  experienced  disaster 
beyond  the  rest.  Yet  it  does  seem  very  natural  |o  think,, 
that,  in  the  recent  Plague,  the  tribe  to  which  ZZijmri  be^ 
longed,  who  is  mentioned  as  a  leading  person,  in  it  with 
great  emphasis,  was  the  tribe  upon  which  the  chief  fury 
of  the  scourge  fell — as  having  been  that  which  had  been 
the  chief  transgressors  in  the  idolatry-. 

Moreover,  that  such  was  the  case,,  t  arn  further  inclined 
to  believe  from  another  circumstance.  One  of  the  last 

i  Numb.  xxv.  14.  2  £b.  xxv.  &  3  Comp.  Ib.  i.  and  ixviv 

4  Ib.  i.  23.  s  ih.  **XH  1^ 

9 


98  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    t, 

great  acts  which  Moses  was  commissioned  to  perform  be- 
fore his  death,  has  a  reference  to  this  very  affair  of  Baal- 
Peor.  "  Avenge  the  children  of  Israel,"  says  God  to  him, 
"of  the  Midianites  ;  afterward  thou  shalt  be  gathered 
unto  thy  people.''1  Moses  did  so :  but  before  he  actually 
was  gathered  to  his  people,  and  while  the  recent  extermi- 
nation of  this  guilty  nation  must  have  been  fresh  in  his 
mind,  he  proceeds  to  pronounce  a  parting  blessing  on  the 
tribes.  Now  it  is  singular,  and  except  upon  some  such 
supposition  as  this  I  am  maintaining,  unaccountable,  that 
whilst  he  deals  out  the  bounties  of  earth  and  heaven  with 
a  prodigal  hand  upon  all  the  others,  the  tribe  of  Simeon  he 
passes  over  in  silence,  and  none  but  the  tribe  of  Simeon 
— for  this  he  has  no  blessing2 — an  omission  which  should 
seem  to  have  some  meaning,  and  which  does  in  fact,  as  I 
apprehend,  point  to  this  same  matter  of  Baal  Peor.  For  if 
that  was  pre-eminently  the  offending  tribe,  nothing  could 
be  more  likely  than  that  Moses,  fresh,  as  I  have  said,  from 
the  destruction  of  the  Midianites  for  their  sin,  should  re- 
member their  principal  partners  in  it  too,  and  should  think 
it  hard  measure  to  slay  the  one,  and  forthwith  bless  the 

1  Numb.  xxxi.  2. 
*•  Deut.  xxxiii.  6.  '  It  is  nothing  but  fair  to  state  that  the  reading  of  the 

CodeX  Alexandr.  is,  ^'C'w  'Povfinv  KO\  fifi  dirodaviru,  «roi  Sv/uwz'   JCTTW   TroXtij   iv 

dpiQ/jiy.  "  Let  Reuben  live  and  not  die,  and  let  Simeon  be  many  in  num- 
ber." This  reading,  however,  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  the  rival  MS.  of  the 
Alexandrine,  and  at  least  its  equal  in  authority,  does  not  recognize  :  neither 
is  it  found  in  the  Hebrew  text,  nor  in  any  of  the  various  readings  of  that 
•  text  as  given  by  Dr.  Kennicott,  nor  in  the  Samaritan,  nor  in  the  early  Ver- 
sions. It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  name  of  Simeon  should  have  been 
omitted  in  so  many  instances  by  mistake ;  whilst  it  is  easy  to  suppose  that 
ft  might  have  been  introduced  in  some  one  instance  by  design,  the  tran- 
scriber «ot  aware  of  any  cause  for  the  exclusion  of  this  one  tribe,  and  say- 
ing, "  Peradventure,  it  is  an  oversight."  Moreover,  the  blessing  of  Reuben 
thus  curtailed,  "  Let  Reuben  Live  and  not  die,"  seems  tame,  and  unworthy 
the  party  and  the  occasion. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF   MOSES*  99 

other.  Nor  can  I  help  remarking,  in  further  support  of 
this  conjecture,  that  the  little  consideration  paid  to  this 
tribe  by  their  brethren  shortly  afterwards,  in  tiie  allotment 
of  the  portions  of  the  Holy  Land,  implies  it  to  have  been 
in  disgrace — their  inheritance  being  only  the  remnant  of 
that  assigned  to  the  children  of  Judah,  which  was  too  much 
for  them  ;l  and  so  inadequate  to  their  wants  did  it  prove, 
that  in  after-times  they  sent  forth  a  colony  even  to  Mount 
Seir. 

Admitting,  then,  the  fact  to  be  as  I  have  supposed,  it  sup- 
ports (as  in  so  many  other  cases  already  mentioned)  the 
credibility  of  a  miracle.  For  the  name  of  the  audacious 
offender  points  incidentally  to  the  offending  tribe — the  ex- 
traordinary diminution  of  that  tribe  points  to  some  extra- 
ordinary cause  of  the  diminution — the  pestilence  presents 
itself  as  a  probable  cause — and  if  the  real  cause,  then  it 
becomes  the  judicial  punishment  of  a  transgression,  a  mir- 
acle wrought  by  God  (as  Moses  would  have  it),  in  token 
that  his  wrath  was  kindled  against  Israel. 

So  much  for  the  Books  of  Moses ;  not  that  I  believe  the 
subject  exhausted,  for  I  doubt  not  that  many  examples  of 
coincidence  without  design  in  the  writings  of  Moses  have 
escaped  me,  which  others  may  detect,  as  one  eye  will  often 
see  what  another  has  overlooked.  Still  I  cannot  account 
for  the  number  and  nature  of  those  which  I  have  been 
able  to  produce  on  any  other  principle  than  the  veracity 
of  the  narrative  which  presents  them ; — accident  could  not 
have  touched  upon  truth  so  often — design  could  not  have 
touched  upon  it  so  artlessly  ;  the  less  so,  because  these  co- 
incidences do  not  discover  themselves  in  certain  detached 
and  isolated  passages,  but  break  out  from  time  to  time  a^ 
the  history  proceeds,  running  witnesses  (as  it  were)  to  the 

1  Josh.  xiz.  9. 


100  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    I, 

accuracy  not  of  one  solitary  detail,  but  of  a  series  of  de- 
tails extending  through  the  lives  and  actions  of  many  dif- 
ferent individuals,  relating  to  many  different  events,  and 
dating  at  many  different  points  of  time.  For,  I  have  trav- 
elled through  the  writings  of  Moses,  beginning  from  the 
history  of  Abraham,  when  a  sojourner  in  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  ending  with  a  transaction  which  happened 
on  the  borders  of  that  land,  when  the  descendants  of 
Abraham,  now  numerous  as  the  stars  in  heaven,  were 
about  to  enter  and  take  possession.  I  have  found  in  the 
progress  of  the  checkered  series  of  events,  the  marks  of 
truth  never  deserting  us — I  have  found  (to  recapitulate  as 
briefly  as  possible)  consistency  without  design  in  the 
many  hints  of  a  Patriarchal  Church  incidentally  scattered 
through  the  Book  of  Genesis  taken  as  a  whole — I  have 
found  it  in  particular  instances ;  in  the  impassioned  terms 
wherein  the  Father  of  the  Faithful  intercedes  for  a  devoted 
city  of  which  his  brother's  son  was  an  inhabitant — in 
the  circumstance  of  his  own  son  receiving  in  marriage 
the  grand-daughter  of  his  brother,  a  singular  confirma- 
tion that  he  was  the  child  of  his  parent's  old  age,  the  mi- 
raculous offspring  of  a  sterile  bed — I  have  found  it  in  the 
several  oblique  intimations  of  the  imbecility  and  insig- 
nificance of  Bethuel — in  the  occurrence  of  Isaac's  medita- 
tion in  the  field,  with  the  fact  of  his  mother's  recent  death 
— and  in  the  desire  of  that  Patriarch  on  a  subsequent  oc- 
casion to  impart  the  blessing,  as  compared  with  what  seem 
to  be  symptoms  of  a  present  and  serious  sickness — I  have 
found  it  in  the  singular  command  of  Jacob  to  his  followers, 
to  put  away  their  idols,  as  compared  with  the  sacking  of 
an  idolatrous  city,  and  the  capture  of  its  idolatrous  in- 
habitants shortly  before — I  have  found  it  in  the  identity 
of  the  character  of  Jacob,  a  character  offered  to  us  in  many 
aspects  and  at  many  distant  intervals,  but  still  ever  the 


PART   I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  101 

same — I  have  found  it  in  the  lading  of  the  camels  of  the 
Ishmaelitish  merchants,  as  compared  with  the  mode  of 
sepulture  amongst  the  Egyptians — in  the  allusions  to  the 
corn-crop  of  Egypt,  thrown  out  in  such  a  variety  of  ways, 
and  so  inadvertently  in  all,  as  compared  one  with  another 
—I  have  found  it  in  the  proportion  of  that  crop  perma- 
nently assigned  to  Pharaoh,  as  compared  with  that  which 
was  taken  up  by  Joseph  for  the  famine  ;  and  in  the  very 
natural  manner  in  which  a  great  revolution  of  the  state  is 
made  to  arise  out  of  a  temporary  emergency — I  have  found 
it  in  the  tenderness  with  which  the  property  of  the  priests 
was  treated,  as  compared  with  the  honor  in  which  they 
were  held  by  the  king,  and  the  alliance  which  had  been 
formed  with  one  of  their  families  by  the  minister  of  the 
king — I  have  found  it  in  the  character  of  Joseph,  which, 
however  and  whenever  we  catch  a  glimpse  of  it,  is  still 
one :  and  whether  it  be  gathered  from  his  own  words  or 
his  own  deeds,  from  the  language  of  his  father  or  from 
the  language  of  his  brethren,  is  still  uniform  throughout — 
I  have  found  it  in  the  death  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  as  com- 
pared with  the  remarkable  law  which  follows  touching  the 
use  of  wine — and  in  the  removal  of  their  corpses  by  the 
sons  of  Uzziel,  as  compared  with  the  defilement  of  certain 
in  the  camp  about  the  same  time  by  the  dead  body  of  a 
man — I  have  found  it  in  the  gushing  of  water  from  the 
rock  at  Rephidim,  as  compared  with  the  attack  of  the 
Amalekites  which  followed — in  the  state  of  the  crops  in 
Judea  at  the  Passover,  as  compared  with  that  of  the 
crops  in  Egypt  at  the  plague  of  Hail — in  the  proportion 
of  oxen  and  waggons  assigned  to  the  several  families  of 
the  Levites,  as  compared  with  the  different  services  they 
had  respectively  to  discharge — I  have  found  it  in  the  order 
of  march  observed  in  one  particular  case,  when  the  Israel- 
ites broke  up  from  Mount  Sinai,  as  compared  with  the 

9* 


102  ,^      THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    1. 

general  directions  given  in  other  places  for  pitching  the 
tents  and  sounding  the  alarms — I  have  found  it  in  (he 
peculiar  propriety  of  the  grouping  of  the  conspirators 
against  Moses  and  Aaron,  as  compared  with  their  relative 
situations  in  the  camp — consisting,  as  they  do,  of  such  a 
family  of  the  Levites  and  such  a  tribe  of  the  Israelites  as 
dwelt  on  the  same  side  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  therefore 
had  especial  facilities  for  clandestine  intercourse — I  have 
found  it  in  an  inference  from  the  direct  narrative,  that  the 
families  of  the  conspirators  did  not  perish  alike,  as  com- 
pared with  a  subsequent  most  casual  assertion,  that  though 
the  households  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  were  destroyed, 
the  children  of  Korath  died  not — I  have  found  it  in  the 
desire  expressed  conjointly  by  the  Tribe  of  Reuben  and 
the  Tribe  of  Gad  to  have  lands  allotted  them  together 
on  the  east  side  of  Jordan,  as  compared  with  their  contig- 
uous position  in  the  camp  during  their  long  and  trying 
march  through  the  wilderness — I  have  found  it  in  the  uni- 
formity with  which  Moses  implies  a  free  communication 
to  have  subsisted  amongst  the  scattered  inhabitants  of  the 
East — in  the  unexpected  discovery  of  Balaam  amongst 
the  dead  of  the  Midianites,  though  he  had  departed 
from  Moab  apparently  to  return  to  his  own  country,  as 
compared  with  the  united  embassy  that  was  sent  to  invite 
him — and,  finally,  I  have  found  it  in  the  extraordinary 
diminution  of  the  Tribe  of  Simeon,  as  compared  with  the 
occasion  of  the  death  of  Zimri,  a  chief  of  that  tribe,  the 
only  individual  whom  Moses  thinks  it  necessary  to  name, 
and  the  victim  by  which  the  Plague  is  appeased. 

These  indications  of  truth  in  the  Mosaic  writings,  (to 
which,  as  I  have  said,  others  of  the  same  kind  might 
doubtless  be  added,)  may  be  sometimes  more,  sometimes 
less  strong ;  still  they  must  be  acknowledged,  I  think,  on 
a  general  review  and  when  taken  in  the  aggregate,  to 


PART    I.  ROOKS    OP    MOSES.  103 

amount  to  evidence  of  great  cumulative  weight — evidence 
the  more  valuable  in  the  present  instance,  Because  the  ex- 
treme antiquity  of  the  documents  precludes  any  arising 
out  of  contemporary  history.  But  though  the  argument 
of  coincidence  without  design  is  the  only  one  with  which 
I  proposed  to  deal,  I  may  be  allowed,  in  closing  my  re- 
marks on  the  Books  of  Moses,  to  make  brief  mention  of  a 
few  other  points  in  favor  of  their  veracity,  which  have 
naturally  presented  themselves  to  my  mind  whilst  I  have 
been  engaged  in  investigating  that  argument — several  of 
these  also  bespeaking  undesignedness  in  the  narrative 
more  or  less,  and  so  far  allied  to  my  main  proposition — 
For  example — 

1.  There  is  a  minuteness  in  the  details  of  the  Mosaic 
writings,  which  argues  their  truth  ;  for  it  often  argues  the 
eye-witness,  as  in  the  adventures  of  the  wilderness ;  and 
often  seems  intended  to  supply  directions  to  the  artificer, 
as  in  the  construction  of  the  Tabernacle. 

2.  There  are  touches  of  nature  in  the  narrative  which 
argue  its  truth,  for  it  is  not  easy  to  regard  them  otherwise 
than  as  strokes  from  the  life — as  where  "  the  mixed  mul- 
titude," whether  half-casts  or  Egyptians,  are  the  first  to 
sigh   for   the  cucumbers   and  melons   of  Egypt,  and   to 
spread  discontent  through  the  camp1 — as,  the  miserable 
exculpation  of  himself,  which  Aaron  attempts,  with  all  the 
cowardice  of  conscious  guilt — "I  cast  into  the  fire,  and 
there  came  out  this  calf :"  the  fire,  to  be  sure,  being  in  the 
fault.2 

3.  There  are  certain  little  inconveniences  represented 
as  turning  up  unexpectedly,  that  argue  truth  in  the  story ; 
for  they  are  just  such  accidents  as  are  characteristic  of  the 
working  of  a  new  system  and  untried  machinery.     What 

»  Numb.  xi.  4.  a  Exod.  xxxii.  24. 


104  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I. 

is  to  be  done  with  the  man  who  is  found  gathering  sticks 
on  the  Sabbath-day1 — (could  an  impostor  have  devised 
such  a  trifle  ?)  How  the  inheritance  of  the  daughters  of 
Zelophehad  is  to  be  disposed  of,  there  being  no  heir-male.2 
Either  of  them  inconsiderable  matters  in  themselves,  but 
both  giving  occasion  to  very  important  laws ;  the  one 
touching  life,  and  the  other  property. 

4.  There  is  a  simplicity  in  the  manner  of  Moses  when 
telling  his  tale,  which  argues  its  truth — no  parade  of  lan- 
guage, no  pomp  of  circumstance  even  in  his  miracles — a 
modesty  and  dignity  throughout  all.     Let  us  but  compare 
him  in  any  trying  scene  with  Josephus  ;   his  description, 
for  instance,  of  the  passage  through  the  Red  Sea,3  of  the 
murmuring  of  the  Israelites  and  the  supply  of  quails  and 
manna,  with  the  same  as  given  by  the  Jewish  historian, 
or  rhetorican,  we  might  rather  say — and  the  force  of  the 
observation  will  be  felt.4 

5.  There  is  a  candor  in  the  treatment  of  his  subject  by 
Moses,  which  argues  his  truth ;  as  when  he  tells  of  his 
own  want  of  eloquence,  which  unfitted  him  for  a  leader5 
— his  own  want  of  faith,  which  prevented  him  from  enter- 
ing the  promised  land* — the  idolatry  of  Aaron  his  brother7 
— the  profaneness  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  his  nephews8 — 
the   disaffection  and   punishment  of  Miriam,  his  sister.9 
The  relationship  which  Amram  his  father  bore  to  Joche- 
bed   his   mother,  which   became  afterwards    one    of  the 
prohibited  degrees  in  the  marriage  Tables  of  the  Levitical 
Law.10 

6.  There  is  a  disinterestedness  in  his  conduct,  which 

i  Numb.  xv.  32.  2  ib.  xxxvi.  2. 

3  Exod.  xiv.     Joseph.  Antiq.  b.  2.  c.  xvi. 

*  Ib.  xvi.    Joseph.  Antiq.  b.  3,  c.  i.        5  ib.  iv.  10.        «  Numb.  xx.  12. 

i  Exod.  xxxii.  21.  »  Lev.  x.  1.  9  Numb.  xii.  1. 

»  Exod.  vi.  20.     Lev.  xxviii,  12., 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES. 


105 


argues  him  to  be  a  man  of  truth  ;  for  though  he  had  sons, 
he  apparently  takes  no  measures  during  his  life  to  give 
them  offices  of  trust  or  profit;  and  at  his  death  he  appoints 
as  his  successor  one  who  had  no  claims  upon  him,  eithei 
of  alliance,  of  clan-ship,  or  of  blood. 

7.  There  are  certain  prophetical  passages  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Moses,  which  argue  their  truth  ;  as  several  respect- 
ing the  future  Messiah  ;  and  the  very  sublime  and  literal 
one  respecting  the  final  fall  of  Jerusalem.1 

8.  There  is  a  simple  key  supplied  by  these  writings  to 
the  meaning  of  many  ancient  traditions  current  amongst 
the  heathens,  though  greatly  disguised,  which  is  another 
circumstance  that  agues  their  truth — as,  the  golden  age — 
the  garden  of  the  Hesperides — the  fruit  tree  in  the  midst 
of  the  garden  which  the  dragon  guarded — the  destruction 
of  mankind  by  a  flood,  all  except  two  persons,  and  those 
righteous  persons — 

"  Innocuos  ambos,  cultores  numinis  ambos;2" 

the  rainbow,  "  which  Jupiter  set  in  the  cloud,  a  sign  to 
men"3 — the  seventh  day  a  sacred  day4 — with  many  others  : 
all  conspiring  to  establish  the  reality  of  the  facts  which 
Moses  relates,  because  tending  to  show  that  vestiges  of  the 
like  present  themselves  in  the  traditional  history  of  the 
world  at  large. 

9.  The  concurrence  which  is  found  between  the  writ- 
ings of  Moses  and  those  of  the  New  Testament,  argues 
their  truth :  the  latter  constantly  appealing  to  them,  being 
indeed  but  the  completion  of  the  system  which  the  others 
are  the  first  to  put  forth.     Nor  is  this  an  illogical  argument 
— for,  though  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testament  itself 
may  certainly  be  reasoned  out  from  the  truth  of  the  Pen- 

i  Deut.  xxviii.  2  Ovid,  Met.  i.  327.  3  Horn.  II.  xi.  27,  28. 

*  Hesiod.  Oper.  ct  D .  770.     See  Grot,  de  Verit.  Rel.  Christ.  1.  1,  x*L 


106 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    I, 


tateuch  once  established,  it  is  still  very  far  from  depending 
on  that  circumstance  exclusively,  or  even  principally. 
The  New  Testament  demands  acceptance  on  its  own 
merits,  on  merits  distinct  from  those  on  which  the  Books 
of  Moses  rest — therefore  (so  far  as  it  does  so)  it  may  fairly 
give  its  suffrage  for  their  veracity — valeat  quantum  valet 
— and  surely  it  is  a  very  improbable  thing,  that  two  dis- 
pensations, separated  by  an  interval  of  some  fifteen  hun- 
dred years,  each  exhibiting  prophecies  of  its  own,  since 
fulfilled — each  asserting  miracles  of  its  own,  on  strong  evi- 
dence of  its  own — that  two  dispensations,  with  such  indi- 
vidual claims  to  be  believed,  should  also  be  found  to  stand 
in  the  closest  relation  to  one  another,  and  yet  both  turn  out 
impostures  after  all. 

10.  Above  all,  there  is  a  comparative  purity  in  the  theol- 
ogy and  morality  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  argues  not  only 
its  truth,  but  its  high  original ;  for  how  else  are  we  to  ac- 
count for  a  system  like  that  of  Moses,  in  such  an  age  and 
amongst  such  a  people ;  that  the  doctrine  of  the  unity,  the 
self-existence,  the  providence,  the  perfections  of  the  great 
God  of  heaven  and  earth,  should  thus  have  blazed  forth 
(how  far  more  brightly  than  even  in  the  vaunted  schools  of 
Athens  at  its  most  refined  era  !)  from  the  midst  of  a  na- 
tion, of  themselves  ever  plunging  into  gross  and  grovelling 
idolatry  ;    and  that  principles  of  social  duty,  of  benevo- 
lence, and  of  self-restraint,  extending  even  to  the  thoughts 
of  the  heart,1  should  have  been  the  produce   of  an   age, 
which  the  very  provisions  of  the  Levitical  Law  itself  show 
to  have  been  full  of  savage  and  licentious  abominations? 

Such  are  some  of  the  internal  evidences  for  the  veracity 
of  the  Books  of  Moses. 

11.  Then   the  situation  in  which  the  Jews  actually 

i  Exod.  xx.  3;  Deut.  vi.  4;  Exod.  iii.  14;  Deut.  xi.  14;  Lev.  xix.  2; 
lb.  xix.  18 ;  Deut.  xxx.  6 ;  Exod.  xx.  17. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  107 

found  themselves  placed,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  no  slight 
argument  for  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  accounts;  reminded, 
as  they  were,  by  certain  memorials  observed  from  year  to 
year,  of  the  great  events  of  their  early  history,  just  as  they 
are  recorded  in  the  writings  of  Moses — memorials,  univer- 
sally recognized  both  in  their  object  and  in  their  authority. 
The  Passover,  for  instance,  celebrated  by  all — no  man 
doubting  its  meaning,  no  man  in  all  Israel  assigning  to  it 
any  other  origin  than  one,  viz.  that  of  being  a  contempo- 
rary monument  of  a  miracle  displayed  in  favor  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel :  by  right  of  which  credentials,  and  no  other, 
it  summoned  from  all  quarters  of  the  world,  at  great  cost, 
and  inconvenience,  and  danger,  the  dispersed  Jews — none 
disputing  the  obligation  to  obey  the  summons. 

12.  Then  the  heroic  devotion  with  which  the  Israelites 
continued  to  regard  the  Law,  even  long  after  they  had 
ceased  to  cultivate  the  better  part  of  it,  even  when  that 
very  Law  only  served  to  condemn  its  worshippers,  so  that 
they  would  offer  themselves  up  by  thousands,  with  their 
children  and  wives,  as  martyrs  to  the  honor  of  their  temple, 
in  which  no  image,  even  of  an  emperor,  who  could  scourge 
them  with  scorpions  for  their  disobedience,  should  be  suf- 
fered to  stand,  and  they  live1 — so  that  rather  than  violate 
the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  Day,  the  bravest  men  in  arms 
would  lay  down  their  lives  as  tamely  as  sheep,  and  allow 
themselves  to  be  burnt  in  the  holes  where  they  had  taken 
refuge  from  their  cruel  and  cowardly  pursuers.8     All  this 
points  to  their  Law,  as  having  been  at  first  promulgated 
under  circumstances  too  awful  to  be  forgotten  even  after 
the  lapse  of  ages. 

13.  Then  again,  the  extraordinary  degree  of  national 
pride  with  which  the  Jews  boasted  themselves  to  be  God's 

1  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud,  b.  2,  c.  10.  §  4.  2  Antiq.  Jud.  b.  12,  c.  6.  §  2. 


108  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    I 

peculiar  people,  as  if  no  nation  ever  was  or  ever  could  be 
so  nigh  to  Him ;  a  feeling  which  the  early  teachers  of 
Christianity  found  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  the  progress 
of  the  Gospel  amongst  them,  and  which  actually  did  effect 
its  ultimate  rejection — this  may  well  seem  to  be  founded 
upon  a  strong  traditional  sense  of  uncommon  tokens  of  the 
Almighty's  regard  for  them  above  all  other  nations  of  the 
earth,  which  they  had  heard  with  their  ears,  or  their 
fathers  had  declared  unto  them,  even  the  noble  works  that 
He  had  done  in  the  old  time  before  them. 

14.  Then  again,   the  constant  craving  after  "  a  sign," 
which  beset  them  in  the  latter  days  of  their  history,  as  a 
lively  certificate  of  the  prophet ;  and  not  after  a  sign  only, 
but  after  such  an  one  as  they  would  themselves  prescribe : 
"  What  sign  shewest  thou  that  we  may  see  and  believe  ?... 
our  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  desert  ;'n  this  desire,  so 
frequently  expressed,  and    with  which   they  are  so  fre- 
quently reproached,  looks  like  the  relic  of  an  appetite  en- 
gendered in  other  times,  when  they  had  enjoyed  the  privi- 
lege of  more  intimate  communion  with  God — it  seems  the 
wake,  as  it  were,  of  miracles  departed. 

15.  Lastly,  the  very  onerous  nature  of  the  Law — so 
studiously  meddling  with  all  the  occupations  of  life,  great 
and  small — this  yoke  would  scarcely  have  been  endured, 
without  the  strongest  assurance  on  the  part  of  those  who 
were  galled  by  it,  of  the  authority  by  which  it  was  im- 
posed.    For  it  met  them  with  some  restraint  or  other  at 
every  turn.     Would  they  plough  ? — Then  it  must  not  be 
with    an  ox    and   an  ass.2     Would  they    sow  ? — Then 
must  not  the  seed  be  mixed.3     Would  they  reap? — Then 
must  they  not  reap  clean.4     Would  they  make  bread  ?— 
Then  must  they  set  apart  dough  enough  for  the  consecra 

i  John  vi.  31.  2  Deut.  xxii.  10.  3  Ib.  9.  *  Lev.  xix.  9. 


PART    I.  BOOKS    OF    MOSES.  109 

ted  loaf.1  Did  they  find  a  bird's  nest? — Then  must  they 
let  the  old  bird  fly  away.2  Did  they  hunt? — Then  they 
must  shed  the  blood  of  their  game,  and  cover  it  with  dust.3 
Did  they  plant  a  fruit  tree? — For  three  years  was  the 
fruit  to  be  uncircumcised.4  Did  they  shave  their  beards  ? 
-They  were  not  to  cut  the  corners.5  Did  they  weave  a 
garment  ? — Then  must  it  be  only  with  threads  prescribed.6 
Did  they  build  a  house  ? — They  must  put  rails  and  bat- 
tlements on  the  roof.7  Did  they  buy  an  estate  ? — At  the 
year  of  Jubilee  back  it  must  go  to  its  owner.8  This  last 
in  itself  and  alone  a  provision  which  must  have  made  itself 
felt  in  the  whole  structure  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth, 
and  have  sensibly  affected  the  character  of  the  people  ; 
every  transfer  of  land  throughout  the  country  having  to 
be  regulated  in  its  price  according  to  the  remoteness  or 
proximity  of  the  year  of  release  ;  and  the  desire  of  accu- 
mulating a  species  of  property  usually  considered  the  most 
inviting  of  any,  counteracted  and  thwarted  at  every  turn. 
All  these  (and  how  many  more  of  the  same  kind  might 
be  named) !  are  enactments  which  it  must  have  required 
extraordinary  influence  in  the  Lawgiver  to  enjoin,  and 
extraordinary  reverence  for  his  powers  to  perpetuate. 

i  Numb.  xv.  20.  2  Deut.  xxii.  6.  3  Lev.  xvii.  13. 

»  Ib.  xix.  23.  «  Ib.  27.  e  Ib.  19. 

»  Deut.  xxii.  8.  8  Lev.  xrv.  13. 


10 


THE  VERACITY 


OF   THE 


HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES. 


PART  IL 

HITHERTO  I  have  endeavored  to  prove  the  veracity  of 
the  Mosaic  writings  by  the  instances  they  contain  of  coin- 
cidence without  design  in  their  several  parts  ;  and  I  hope 
and  believe  that  I  have  succeeded  in  pointing  out  such 
coincidences  as  might  come  of  truth,  and  could  come  of 
nothing  but  truth.  These  presented  themselves  in  the 
history  of  the  Patriarchs  from  Abraham  to  Joseph ;  and 
in  the  history  of  the  chosen  race  in  general,  from  their 
departure  out  of  Egypt  to  the  day  when  their  great  Law- 
giver expired  on  the  borders  of  that  land  of  Promise  into 
which  Joshua  was  now  to  lead  them — a  long  and  eventful 
history.  I  shall  now  resume  the  subject ;  pursue  the  ad- 
ventures of  this  extraordinary  people,  as  they  are  unfolded 
in  some  of  the  subsequent  books  of  holy  writ ;  and,  still 
using  the  same  test  as  before,  ascertain  whether  these  por- 
tions of  Scripture  do  not  appear  to  be  equally  trustworthy, 
and  whilst,  like  the  former,  they  assert,  often  without  any 
recourse  to  the  intervention  of  second  causes,  miracles 
many  and  mighty,  they  do  not  challenge  confidence  in 
those  miracles  by  marks  of  reality,  consistency,  and  accu- 


PART    II.          THE    HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  11 

racy,  which  the  ordinary  matters  of  fact  combined  with 
them  constantly  exhibit.  "  For  this  credibility  of  the  com 
mon  scripture  history,"  says  Bishop  Butler,  "  gives  some 
credibility  to  its  miraculous  history ;  especially  as  this  is 
interwoven  with  the  common,  so  as  that  they  imply  each 
other,  and  both  together  make  up  one  revelation."1 


I. 


MOSES  then  being  dead,  Joshua  takes  the  command  of 
the  armies  of  Israel,  and  marches  them  over  Jordan  to  the 
possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  It  was  a  day  and  a 
deed  much  to  be  remembered.  "  It  came  to  pass,  when  the 
people  removed  from  their  tents  to  pass  over  Jordan,  and 
the  priests  bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant  before  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  as  they  that  bare  the  ark  were  come  unto  Jordan, 
and  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped 
in  the  brim  of  the  water,  (for  Jordan  overflowed!  all  his 
banks  in  the  time  of  harvest,)  that  the  waters  which  came 
down  from  above  stood  and  rose  tip  upon  an  heap  very 
far  from  the  city  Adam,  that  is  beside  Zaretan :  and 
those  that  came  down  toward  the  sea  of  the  plain,  even 
the  salt  sea,  failed  and  were  cut  off:  and  the  people  passed 
over  right  against  Jericho.  And  the  priests  that  bare  the 
irk  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  stood  firm  on  the  dry 
ground  in  the  midst  of  Jordan,  and  all  the  Israelites  passed 
over  on  dry  ground,  until  all  the  people  were  passed  clean 
over  Jordan.''2 

Such  is  the  language  of  the  Book  of  Joshua.  Now  in 
«he  midst  of  this  miraculous  narrative,  an  incident  is  men- 
noned,  though  very  casually,  which  dates  »'  >oson  of 

i  Analogy,  p.  389.  2  joah.  iii.  14—17. 


112  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

the  year  when  this  passage  of  the  Jordan  was  effected. 
The  feet  of  the  priests,  it  seems,  were  dipped  in  the  brim 
of  the  water ;  and  this  is  explained  by  the  season  being 
that  of  the  periodical  inundation  of  Jordan,  that  river 
overflowing  his  baj*k«  all  the  time  of  harvest.  The  bar- 
ley-harvest  is  here  meant,  or  the  former  harvest,  as  it  is 
elsewhere  called,  in  contradistinction  to  the  wheat,  or  latter 
harvest ;  for  in  the  fourth  chapter  (v.  19)  we  read,  "  the 
people  came  up  out  of  Jordan  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first 
month"  that  is,  fou~  days  before  the  Passover,  which  fell 
in  with  the  barley-harvest ;  the  wheat-harvest  not  being 
fully  completed  till  Pentecost,  or  fifty  days  later  in  the 
year,  when  the  wave-loaves  of  the  first-fruits  of  the  wheat 
were  offered  up.1  The  Israelites  passed  the  Jordan  then, 
it  appears,  at  the  time  of  barley-harvest.  But  we  are  told 
in  Exodus  that  at  the  Plague  of  Hail,  which  was  but  a 
day  or  two  before  the  Passover,  "  the  flax  and  the  barley 
were  smitten,  for  the  barley  was  in  the  ear  and  the  flax 
was  boiled,  but  the  wheat  and  the  rye  were  not  smitten, 
for  they  were  not  grown  up."2  It  should  seem,  therefore, 
that  the  flax  and  the  barley  were  crops  which  ripened 
about  the  same  time  in  Egypt ;  and  as  the  climate  of  Ca- 
naan did  not  differ  materially  from  that  of  Egypt,  this,  no 
doubt,  was  the  case  in  Canaan  too ;  there  also  these  two 
crops  would  come  in  at  the  same  time.  The  Israelites, 
therefore,  who  crossed  the  Jordan,  as  we  have  seen  in  one 
passage,  at  the  harvest,  and  that  harvest,  as  we  have  seen 
in  another  passage,  the  barley-harvest,  must,  if  so,  have 
crossed  it  at  the^?a#-harvest. 

Now,  in  a  former  chapter,  we  are  informed,  that  three 
days  before  Joshua  ventured  upon  the  invasion,  he  sent 

1  This  question  of  the  harvests  TB  examined  in  greater  detail  in  Part  I. 
ffo.  rvi. 
«  Exod.  be.  31. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  113 

two  men,  spies,  to  view  the  land,  even  Jericho.1  It  was  a 
service  of  peril :  they  were  received  by  Rahab,  a  woman 
of  that  city,  and  lodged  in  her  house  :  but  the  entrance  of 
these  strangers  at  night-fall  was  observed :  it  was  a  mo- 
ment, no  doubt,  of  great  suspicion  and  alarm  :  an  enemy's 
army  encamped  on  the  borders.  The  thing  was  reported 
to  the  King  of  Jericho,  and  search  was  made  for  the  men. 
Rahab,  however,  fearing  God — for  by  faith  she  felt  that 
the  miracles  wrought  by  him  in  favor  of  Israel  were  proofs 
that  for  Israel  he  fought, — by  faith,  which,  living  as  she 
did  in  the  midst  of  idolaters,  might  well  be  counted  to  her 
for  righteousness,  and  the  like  to  which,  in  a  somewhat 
similar  case,  was  declared  by  our  Lord,  enough  to  lead 
those  who  professed  it  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  even  be- 
fore the  chief  priests  and  elders  themselves2 — she,  I  say, 
having  this  faith  in  God,  and  true  to  those  laws  of  hospi- 
tality which  are  the  glory  of  the  eastern  nations,  and  more 
especially  of  the  females  of  the  East,  even  to  this  day,  at 
much  present  risk  protected  her  guests  from  their  pursuers. 
But  how !  "  She  brought  them  up  to  the  roof  of  her 
house,  and  hid  them  with  the  stalks  of  flax"* — the  stalks 
of  flax,  no  doubt  just  cut  down,  which  she  had  spread  upon 
the  roof  of  her  house  to  steep  and  to  season. 

Here  I  see  truth.  Yet  how  very  minute  is  this  incident ! 
how  very  casually  does  it  present  itself  to  our  notice  !  how 
very  unimportant  a  matter  it  seems  in  the  first  instance, 
under  what  the  spies  were  hidden  !  enough  that,  whatever 
it  was,  it  answered  the  purpose,  and  saved  their  lives. 
Could  the  historian  have  contemplated  for  one  moment  the 
effect  which  a  trifle  about  a  flax-stalk  might  have  in  cor- 
roboration  of  his  account  of  the  passage  of  the  Jordan  ? 
Is  it  possible  for  the  most  jealous  examiner  of  human  tes- 

i  Josh.  i.  2;  U.  1,  22;  iii.  2.  2  Heb.  xi.  31.    Matt.  xxi.  31. 

»  Josh.  ii.  6. 

10* 


114  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II. 

timony  to  imagine  that  these  flax-stalks  were  fixed  upon 
above  all  things  in  the  world  for  the  covering  of  the  spies, 
because  they  were  known  to  be  ripe  with  the  barley,  and 
the  barley  was  known  to  be  ripe  at  the  Passover,  and  the 
"Passover  was  known  to  be  the  season  when  the  Israelites 
set  foot  in  Canaan  ?  Or  rather,  would  he  not  fairly  and 
candidly  confess,  that  in  one  particular,  at  least,  of  this 
adventure,  (the  only  one  which  we  have  au  opportunity  of 
checking,)  a  religious  attention  to  truth  is  manifested  ;  and, 
that  when  it  is  said,  "  the  feet  of  the  Priests  were  dipped 
in  the  brim  of  the  water,"  and  when  a  reason  is  assigned 
for  this  gradual  approach  to  the  bed  of  a  river,  of  which 
the  banks  were  in  general  steep  and  precipitous,  we  are 
put  in  possession  of  one  unquestionable  fact  at  least,  one 
particular  upon  which  we  may  safely  repose,  whatever  may 
be  said  of  the  remainder  of  the  narrative,  and  that  assur- 
edly truth  leads  us  by  the  hand  to  the  very  edge  of  the 
miracle,  if  not  through  the  miracle  itself? 


ii. 

THE  Israelites  having  made  this  successful  inroad  into 
the  land  of  Canaan,  divided  it  amongst  the  Tribes.  But 
the  Canaanites,  though  panic-struck  at  their  first  ap- 
proach, soon  began  to  take  heart,  and  the  covetous  policy 
of  Israel  (a  policy  which  dictated  attention  to  present  pe- 
cuniary profits,  no  matter  at  what  eventual  cost  to  the 
great  moral  interests  of  the  Commonwealth)  had  satisfied 
itself  with  making  them  tributaries,  contrary  to  the  com- 
mand of  God,  that  they  should  be  driven  out  ;l  and,  ac- 
cordingly, they  were  suffered,  as  it  was  promised,  to  be- 

i  Eiod.  xxiii.  31. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  115 

come  thorns  in  Israel's  side,  always  vexing,  often  resisting 
and  sometimes  oppressing  them  for  many  years  together. 
Meanwhile  the  Tribe  of  Dan  had  its  lot  cast  near  the 
Amodtes.  It  struggled  to  work  out  for  itself  a  settlement ; 
but  its  fierce  and  warlike  neighbors  drove  in  its  outposts, 
and  succeeded  in  confining  it  to  the  mountains. l  The 
children  of  Dan  became  straitened  in  their  borders,  and, 
unable  to  extend  them  at  home,  "  they  sent  of  their  fam- 
ily five  men  from  their  coasts,  men  of  valor,  to  spy  out 
the  land  and  to  search  it."  So  these  five  men  departed, 
and,  directing  their  steps  northwards,  to  the  nearest  parts 
of  the  country  which  held  out  any  prospect  to  settlers, 
"  they  came,"  we  are  told,  "  to  Laish,  and  saw  the  people 
that  were  therein,  how  they  dwelt  careless,  after  the  man- 
ner of  the  Zidonians,  quiet  and  secure,  and  there  /was  no 
magistrate  in  the  land  that  might  put  them  to  shame  in 
anything,  and  they  were  far  from  the  Zidonians,  and 
had  no  business  with  any  man."2  Thus  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  place  and  the  people  were  tempting  to  the  views 
of  the  strangers.  They  return  to  their  brethren,  and 
advise  an  attempt  upon  the  town.  Accordingly  they 
march  against  it,  take  it,  and,  rebuilding  the  city,  which 
was  destroyed  in  the  assault,  change  its  name  from  Laish 
to  Dan,  and  colonize  it.  From  this  it  should  appear  that 
Laish,  though  far  from  Sidon,  was  in  early  times  a  town 
belonging  to  Sidon,  and  probably  inhabited  by  Sidonians, 
for  it  was  after  their  manner  that  the  people  lived. 

Such  is  the  information  furnished  us  in  the  eighteenth 
chapter  of  the  Book  Q{  Judges. 

I  now  turn  to  the  third  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, and  I  there  find  the  following  passage  :  "  We  took 
at  that  time,1'  says  Moses,  "out  of  the  hand  of  the  two 

»  Judges  i.  34.  s  Ib.  xviii.  7. 


116  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    II. 

kings  of  the  Amorites  the  land  that  was  on  this  side  Jor- 
dan, from  the  river  of  Arnon  unto  Mount  Hermon — which 
Herman  the  Sidonians  call  Sirion,  and  the  Amorites  call 
it  Shenir."1  But  why  this  mention  of  the  Sidonian  name 
of  this  famous  mountain  ?  It  was  not  near  to  Sidon — it 
does  not  appear  to  have  belonged  to  Sidon,  but  to  the  king 
of  Bashan.8  The  reason,  though  not  obvious,  is  neverthe- 
less discoverable,  and  a  very  curious  geographical  coinci- 
dence it  affords  between  the  former  passage  in  Judges  and 
this  in  Deuteronomy. 

For  Hermon,  we  know,  was  close  to  Caesarea  Philippi. 
But  Caesarea  Philippi,  we  are  again  informed,  was  the 
modern  name  of  Paneas,  the  seat  of  Jordan's  flood :  and 
Paneas,  we  further  learn,  was  the  same  as  the  still  more 
ancient  Dan  or  Laish.3  Now  Laish,  we  have  seen,  was 
probably  at  first  a  settlement  of  the  Sidonians,  after  whose 
manner  the  people  of  Laish  lived.  Accordingly  it  appears 
— but  how  distant  and  unconnected  are  the  passages  from 
which  such  a  conclusion  is  drawn  ! — that  although  this 
Hermon  was  far  from  Sidon  itself,  still  at  its  foot  there 
was  dwelling  a  Sidonian  colony,  a  race  speaking  the  Si- 
donian language ;  and,  therefore,  nothing  could  be  more 
natural  than  that  the  mountain  which  overhung  the  town 
should  have  a  Sidonian  name,  by  which  it  was  commonly 
known  in  those  parts,  and  that  this  should  suggest  itself, 
as  well  as  its  Hebrew  name,  to  Moses. 

i  Deut.  iii.  8,  9.  2  josh.  xii.  4,  5. 

3  "  Dan  Phoenices  oppidum,  quod  nunc  Paneas  dicitur.  Dan  autem 
unus  e  fontibus  est  Jordanis." — Hieronym.  in  Qusestionibus  in  Genesin  i. 
p.  382.  It  was  also  Csesarea  Philippi.— Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  vii.  c.  xvii. 

« The  Hierusalem  Targum,  Numb.  xxxv.  writes  thus,  "  The  mountain  of 
Snow  at  Cffisarea  (Philippi)— this  was  Herrnon.' "— Lightfoot,  Vol.  u.  p. 
62,fol.  See  also  Psalm  xlii.  8. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  117 


III. 

CONNECTED  with  the  circumstances  of  this  same  colony 
of  Laish  is  another  coincidence  which  I  have  to  offer,  and 
I  introduce  it  in  this  place,  because  it  is  so  connected,  fot 
otherwise  it  anticipates  a  point  of  Jewish  history,  which, 
in  the  order  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  lies  a  long  way  be- 
fore me.  The  construction  of  Solomon's  Temple  at  Jeru- 
salem is  the  event  at  which  it  dates. 

In  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  First  Book  of  Kings  I 
read,  "  And  king  Solomon  sent  and  fetched  Hiram  out  of 
Tyre.  He  was  a  widow's  son  of  the  Tribe  of  Naphtali, 
and  his  father  was  a  man  of  Tyre,  a  worker  in  brass ; 
and  he  was  filled  with  wisdom  and  understanding,  and 
cunning  to  work  all  works  in  brass.  And  he  came  to 
king  Solomon,  and  wrought  all  his  work."  (v.  13.)  But 
in  the  parallel  passage  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Second 
Book  of  Chronicles,  (v.  13),  where  we  have  the  answer 
which  king  Hiram  returned  to  Solomon,  when  the  latter 
desired  him  to  "  send  him  a  man,  cunning  to  work  in 
gold,  and  in  silver,  and  in  brass  ;"  I  find  it  running  thus  : 
— "  Now  I  have  sent  a  cunning  man,  endued  with  under- 
standing, of  Huram  my  father's,  (or  perhaps  Huram-Abi 
by  name,)  the  son  of  a  woman  of  the  daughters  of  Dan, 
and  his  father  was  a  man  of  Tyre,  skilful  to  work  in  gold." 
It  is  evident,  that  the  same  individual  is  meant  in  both 
passages ;  yet  there  is  an  apparent  discrepancy  between 
them  :  the  one  in  Kings  asserting  his  mother  to  be  a  wo- 
man of  the  Tribe  of  Naphtali  ;  the  other,  in  Chronicles, 
asserting  her  to  be  a  woman  of  the  daughters  of  Dan. 
The  difficulty  has  driven  the  critics  to  some  intricate  ex- 
pedients, in  order  to  resolve  it.  "  She  herself  was  of  the 
Tribe  of  Dan,"  says  Dr.  Patrick  ;  "  but  her  first  husband 


118  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II. 

was  of  the  Tribe  of  Naphtali,  by  whom  she  had  this  son. 
When  she  was  a  widow,  she  married  a  man  of  Tyre,  who 
is  called  Hiram's  father,  because  he  bred  him  up,  and  was 
the  husband  of  his  mother."  All  this  is  gratuitous.  The 
explanation  only  serves  to  show  that  the  interpreter  was 
aware  of  the  knot,  but  not  of  the  solution.  This  difficulty, 
however,  like  many  others  in  Scripture,  when  once  ex- 
plained, helps  to  confirm  its  truth.  We  have  seen  in  the 
last  paragraph,  that  six  hundred  Danites  emigrated  from 
their  own  Tribe,  and  seized  upon  Laish,  a  city  of  the  Si- 
donians.  Now  the  Sidonians  were  subjects  of  the  king  of 
Tyre,  and  were  the  selfsame  people  as  the  Tyrians  ;  for 
in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  First  Book  of  Kings,  where  Sol- 
omon is  reported  of  sending  to  the  king  of  Tyre  for  work- 
men, he  is  said  to  assign  as  a  reason  for  the  application, 
"  Thou  knowest  that  there  is  not  among  us  any  that  can 
skill  to  hew  timber  like  unto  the  Sidonians"  (v.  6.) 
The  Tyrians,  therefore,  and  the  Sidonians  were  the  same 
nation.  But  Laish  or  Dan,  we  found,  was  near  the 
springs  of  Jordan  ;  and  therefore,  since  the  "  outgoings " 
of  the  territory  of  Naphtali  are  expressly  said  to  have  been 
at  Jordan,  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  Laish  or 
Dan  stood  in  the  Tribe  of  Naphtali.  But  if  so,  then  is 
the  difficulty  solved  ;  for  the  woman  was,  by  abode,  of 
Naphtali;  Laish,  where  she  dwelt,  being  situated  in 
that  Tribe,  as  Jacob  is  called  a  Syrian,  from  his  having 
lived  in  Syria;1  and  by  birth,  she  was  of  Dan,  being 
come  of  that  little  colony  of  Danites,  which  the  parent 
stock  had  sent  forth  in  early  times  to  settle  at  a  distance. 
Meanwhile,  the  very  circumstance  which  interposes  to 
reconcile  the  apparent  disagreement,  accounts  no  less  nat- 
urally for  the  fact,  that  she  had  a  Tyrian  for  her  husband. 

1  Deut.  xxvi  5. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  119 

Now  upon  what  a  very  trifle  does  this  mark  of  truth 
turn!  Who  can  suspect  anything  insidious  here?  any 
trap  for  the  unwary  inquisitor  after  internal  evidence  in 
the  domestic  circumstances  of  a  master-smith,  employed  by 
Solomon  to  build  his  temple  ? 

I  am  glad  to  have  it  in  my  power  to  produce  this  geo- 
graphical coincidence,  because  it  is  rare  in  its  kind — the 
geography  of  Canaan,  owing  to  its  extreme  perplexity, 
scarcely  furnishing  its  due  contingent  to  the  argument  I 
am  handling.  However,  that  very  intricacy  may  in  itself 
be  though  to  say  something  to  our  present  purpose  ;  aris- 
ing, as  it  in  a  great  degree  does,  out  of  the  manifold  in- 
stances in  which  different  places  are  called  by  the  same 
name  in  the  Holy  Land.  Now  whilst  this  accident  creates 
a  confusion,  very  unfavorable  to  determining  their  respec- 
tive sites,  and  consequently  stands  in  the  way  of  such  un- 
designed tokens  of  truth  as  might  spring  out  of  a  more 
accurate  knowledge  of  such  particulars ;  still  it  accords  very 
singularly  with  the  circumstances  under  which  Scripture 
reports  the  land  of  Canaan  to  have  been  occupied  : — I 
mean,  that  it  was  divided  amongst  Twelve  Tribes  of  one 
and  the  same  nation  ;  each,  therefore,  left  to  regulate  the 
names  within  its  own  borders  after  its  own  pleasure ;  and 
all  having  many  associations  in  common,  which  would 
often  over-rule  them,  no  doubt,  however  unintentionally, 
to  fix  upon  the  same.  We  have  only  to  look  to  our  own 
colonies,  in  whatever  latitude  dispersed,  to  see  the  like 
workings  of  the  same  natural  feeling  familiarly  exemplified 
in  the  identity  of  local  names,  which  they  severally  present. 
And  it  may  be  added,  that  such  a  geographical  nomencla- 
ture was  the  more  likely  to  establish  itself  in  the  new 
settlements  of  the  Israelites,  amongst  whom  names  of 
places,  from  the  earliest  times  downwards,  seem  to  have 
been  seldom,  if  ever,  arbitrary,  but  still  to  have  carried 


120  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    II. 

with  them  some  meaning,  which   was,   or   which  was 
thought  to  be,  significant. 


IV. 


I  HAVE  said  that  the  Canaanites,  who  were  spared  by 
the  Israelites  after  the  first  encounter  with  them,  partly 
that  they  might  derive  from  the  conquered  race  a  tribute, 
and  partly  that  they  might  employ  them  in  the  servile 
offices  of  hewing  wood  and  drawing  water,  by  degrees 
recovered  their  spirit,  urged  war  successfully  against  their 
invaders,  and  for  many  years  mightily  oppressed  Israel. 
The  Philistines,  the  most  formidable  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Canaan,  and  those  under  whom  the  Israelites  suffered  the 
most  severely,  added  policy  to  power.  For  at  their  bidding 
it  came  to  pass,  (and  probably  the  precaution  was  adopted 
by  others  besides  the  Philistines,)  that  "there  was  no 
smith  found  throughout  all  the  land  of  Israel ;  for  the 
Philistines  said,  Lest  the  Hebrews  make  themselves  swords 
and  spears.  But  all  the  Israelites  went  down  to  the  Phil- 
istines, to  sharpen  every  man  his  share,  and  his  coulter, 
and  his  axe,  and  his  mattock."1  Such  is  said  to  have 
been  the  rigorous  law  of  the  conquerors.  The  workers  in 
iron  were  everywhere  put  down,  lest,  under  pretence  of 
making  implements  for  the  husbandman,  they  should 
forge  arms  for  the  rebel.  Now  that  some  such  law  was 
actually  in  force,  (I  am  not  aware  that  direct  mention  is 
made  of  it  except  in  this  one  passage,)  is  a  fact  confirmed 
by  a  great  many  incidents,  some  of  them  very  trifling  and 
inconsiderable,  none  of  them  related  or  connected,  but  all 
of  them  turned  by  this  one  key. 

i  1  Sam.  xiii.  19. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  121 

Thus,  when  Ehud  prepared  to  dispatch  Eglon  the  king 
of  Moab,  to  whom  the  Israelites  were  then  subject,  "  he 
made  him"  (we  are  told)  "  a  dagger,  which  had  two  edges, 
of  a  cubit  length,  and  he  did  gird  it  under  his  raiment 
upon  his  right  thigh;"1  he  made  it  himself,  it  seems,  ex- 
pressly for  the  occasion,  and  he  bound  it  upon  his  right 
thigh,  instead  of  his  left,  which  was  the  sword-side,  to 
baffle  suspicion ;  whilst,  being  left-handed,  he  could  wield 
it  nevertheless.  Moreover  it  may  be  observed  in  passing, 
that  Ehud  was  a  Benjamite  ;2  and  that  of  the  Benjamites, 
when  their  fighting  men  turned  out  against  Israel  in  the 
affair  of  Gibeah,  there  were  seven  hundred  choice  slingers 
left-handed;3  and  that  of  this  discomfited  army,  six  hun- 
dred persons  escaped  to  the  rock  Rimmon,  none  so  likely 
as  the  light  armed  ;  and  that  this  escape  is  dated  by  oae 
of  our  most  careful  investigators  of  Scripture,  Dr.  Light  foot, 
at  thirteen  years  before  Ehud's  accession.4  What  then  is 
more  probable, — yet  I  need  not  say  how  incidental  is  this 
touch  of  truth, — than  that  this  left-handed  Ehud,  a  Ben- 
jamite, was  one  who  survived  of  those  seven  hundred  left- 
handed  slingers,  who  were  Benjamites? 

Thus  again.  Shamgar  slays  six  hundred  of  the  Philis- 
tines with  an  ox-goad;5  doubtless  having  recourse  to  an 
implement  so  inconvenient,  because  it  was  not  permitted 
to  carry  arms  or  to  have  them  in  possession. 

Thus  Samson,  when  he  went  down  to  Timnath,  with 
no  very  friendly  feeling  towards  the  Philistines,  however 
he  might  feign  it,  nor  at  a  moment  of  great  political  tran- 
quillity, was  still  unarmed  ;  so  that  when  "  the  young  lion 
roared  against  him,  he  rent  him,  as  he  would  have  rent  a 

i  Judges  iii.  16.  2  ibid.  iii.  15.  3  Ibid.  xx.  16. 

«  Lightfoot's  Works,  i.  44—47.  «  Judges  iii.  31. 

11 


122  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II 

kid,  and  he  had  nothing  in  his  hand."1  And  when  the 
same  champion  slew  a  thousand  of  the  Philistines,  it  was 
with  a  jaw-bone,  for  he  had  no  other  choice.  "  Was  there 
a  shield  or  spear  seen  among  forty  thousand  in  Israel  ?"3 

All  these  are  indications,  yet  very  oblique  ones,  that  no 
smith  or  armorer  wrought  throughout  all  the  land  of 
Israel ;  for  it  will  be  perceived,  on  examination,  that  every 
one  of  these  incidents  occurred  at  times  when  the  Israel- 
ites were  under  subjection. 

Moreover,  it  was  probably  in  consequence  of  this  same 
restrictive  law,  that  the  sling  became  so  popular  a  wea- 
pon amongst  the  Israelites.  It  does  not  appear  that  it  was 
known,  or  at  least  used,  under  Moses.  Whilst  Israel  was 
triumphant,  it  was  not  needed  :  in  those  happier  days,  her 
fighting-men  were  men  that  "  drew  the  sword."  In  the 
days  of  her  oppression  they  were  driven  to  the  use  of  more 
ignoble  arms.  The  sling  was  readily  constructed,  and 
readily  concealed.  Whilst  a  staff  or  hempken-stalk  grew 
in  her  fields,  and  a  smooth  stone  lay  in  her  brooks,  this 
artillery  at  least  was  ever  forthcoming.  It  was  not  a  very 
fatal  weapon,  unless  wielded  with  consummate  skill.  The 
Philistines  despised  it :  Goliath,  we  may  remember,  scorns 
it  as  a  weapon  against  a  dog :  but  by  continual  applica- 
tion to  the  exercise  of  it,  (for  it  was  now  their  only  hope.) 
the  Israelites  converted  a  rude  and  rustic  plaything  into  a 
formidable  engine  of  war.  That  troop  of  Benjamites, 
of  whom  I  have  already  spoken,  had  taken  pains  to  make 
themselves  equally  expert  with  either  hand — (every  one 
could  sling  stones  at  an  hairbreadth,  and  not  miss) — and 
the  precision  with  which  David  directed  it,  would  not  per- 
haps be  thought  extraordinary  amongst  the  active  and 
practised  youths  of  his  day. 

»  Judges  xiv.  5,  6.  2  ibid.  v.  8. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  123 

These  particulars,  it  will  be  perceived,  are  many  and 
divers ;  and  though  they  might  not  of  themselves  have 
enabled  us  to  draw  them  into  an  induction  that  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Canaan  withheld  from  Israel  the  use  of  arms  ; 
yet,  when  we  are  put  in  possession  of  the  single  fact,  that 
no  smith  was  allowed  throughout  all  Israel,  we  are  at  once 
supplied  with  the  centre  towards  which  they  are  one  and 
all  perceived  to  converge. 

I  know  not  how  incidents  of  the  kind  here  produced  can 
be  accounted  for,  except  by  the  supposition  that  they  are 
portions  of  a  true  and  actual  history ;  and  they  who  may 
feel  that  there  is  in  them  some  force,  but  who  may  at  the 
same  time  feel  that  fuller  evidence  is  wanted  to  compel 
their  assent  to  a  Scripture  which  makes  upon  them  de- 
mands so  large  ;  who  secretly  whisper  to  themselves,  in 
the  temper  of  the  incredulous  Jew  of  old,  "  We  would  see 
a  sign  ;"  or  of  him  who  mocked,  saying,  "  Let  Him  now 
come  down  from  the  cross,  and  we  will  believe" — let  such 
calmly  and  dispassionately  consider,  that  there  could  be  no 
room  for  faith,  if  there  were  no  room  for  doubt ;  that  the 
scheme  of  our  probation  requires,  perhaps  as  a  matter  of 
necessity,  that  faith  should  be  in  it  a  very  chief  ingredi- 
ent ;  that  the  exercise  of  faith,  (as  we  may  partly  perceive,) 
both  the  spirit  which  must  foster  it,  and  the  spirit  which 
must  issue  from  it,  is  precisely  what  seems  fit  for  mould- 
ing us  into  vessels  for  future  honor ;  that  natural  religion 
lifts  up  its  voice  to  tell  us,  that  in  this  world  we  are,  un- 
doubtedly living  under  the  dispensation  of  a  God,  who  has 
given  us  probability,  and  not  demonstration,  for  the  prin- 
ciple of  our  ordinary  guidance  ;  and  that  he  may  be  there- 
fore well  disposed  to  proceed  under  a  similar  dispensation, 
with  regard  to  the  next  world,  trying  thereby  who  is  the 
"  wise  servant" — who  is  reasonable  in  his  demands  for  evi- 
dence, for  such  he  rejects  not ;  and  who  is  presumptuous 


124  THE    VERACITY    OP   THE  PART    II. 

for  such  he  still  further  hardens, — saying  to  the  one  with 
complacency  and  satisfaction.  "  Because  I  said  unto  thee, 
I  saw  thee  under  the  fig-tree,  believest  thou  ?  Thou  shalt 
see  greater  things  than  these."1  And  to  the  other,  in  sor- 
row and  rebuke,  "  Because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast 
believed ;  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have 
believed."2 


V. 


IT  is  most  satisfactory  to  find,  as  the  history  of  the  Israel- 
ites unfolds  itself,  the  same  indications  of  truth  and  accu- 
racy still  continuing  to  present  themselves — the  same  sig- 
natures (as  it  were)  of  a  subscribing  witness  of  credit, 
impressed  on  every  sheet  as  we  turn  it  over  in  its  order. 
The  glory  of  Israel  is  now  brought  before  us :  David  comes 
upon  the  scene,  destined  to  fill  the  most  conspicuous  place 
in  the  annals  of  his  country,  and  furnishing,  in  the  details 
of  his  long  and  eventful  life,  a  series  of  arguments  such 
as  we  are  in  search  of,  decisive,  I  think,  of  the  reality  of 
his  story,  and  of  the  fidelity  with  which  it  is  told.  With 
these  I  shall  be  now  for  some  time  engaged. 

The  circumstances  under  which  he  first  appears  be- 
fore us,  are  such  as  give  token  at  once  of  his  intrepid  char- 
acter, and  trust  in  God.  "  And  there  went  out  a  champion," 
(so  we  read  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  the  First  Book 
of  Samuel,)  "  out  of  the  camp  of  the  Philistines,  Goliath 
of  Gath,  whose  height  was  six  cubits  and  a  span."  The 
point  upon  which  the  argument  for  the  veracity  of  the  his- 
tory which  ensues  will  turn,  is  the  incidental  mention 
here  made  of  Goth,  as  the  city  of  Goliath,  a  patronymic 

i  John  i.  50.  »  Ibid  xx.  29. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  125 

which  might  have  been  thought  of  very  little  importance, 
either  in  its  insertion  or  omission  ;  here,  however,  it  stands. 
Goliath  of  Gath  was  David's  gigantic  antagonist.  Now  let 
us  mark  the  value  of  this  casual  designation  of  the  formi- 
dable Philistine.  The  report  of  the  spies  whom  Moses  sent 
into  Canaan,  as  given  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Book 
of  Numbers,  was  as  follows : — "  The  land  through  which  we 
have  gone  to  search  it,  ig  a  land  that  eateth  up  the  inhab- 
itants thereof ;  and  all  the  people  that  we  saw  in  it  were 
men  of  a  great  stature.  And  there  we  saw  the  giant s, 
the  sons  of  Anak,  which  came  of  the  giants.  And  we 
were  in  our  own  sight  as  grasshoppers,  and  so  we  were  in 
their  sight."1  Moses  is  here  a  testimony  unto  us,  that  these 
Anakims  were  a  race  of  extraordinary  stature.  This  fact 
let  us  bear  in  mind,  and  now  turn  to  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
There  it  is  recorded  amongst  the  feats  of  arms  of  that  val- 
iant leader  of  Israel,  whereby  he  achieved  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  that  "  He  cut  off  the  Anakims  from  the  moun- 
tains, from  Hebron,  from  Debir,  from  Anab,  and  from  the 
mountains  of  Judah,  and  from  all  the  mountains  of  Israel : 
Joshua  destroyed  them  utterly,  with  their  cities.  There 
was  none  of  the  Anakims  left  in  the  land  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  only"  (observe  the  exception)  "  in  Gaza,  in  Gath, 
and  in  Ashdod,  there  remained."2  Here,  in  his  turn, 
comes  in  Joshua  as  a  witness,  that  when  he  put  the  Ana- 
kims to  the  sword,  he  left  some  remaining  in  three  cities, 
and  in  no  others  ;  and  one  of  these  three  cities  was  Gath. 
Accordingly,  when  in  the  Book  of  Samuel  we  find  Gath 
most  incidentally  named  as  the  country  of  Goliath,  the  fact 
squares  very  singularly  with  those  two  other  independent 
facts,  brought  together  from  two  independent  authorities — 
the  Books  of  Moses  and  Joshua — the  one,  that  the  Ana- 

i  Numb.  xiii.  32,  33.  2  Josh,  xi  21.  22. 


126  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    II. 

kirns  were  persons  of  gigantic  size;  the  other,  that  some 
of  this  nearly  exterminated  race,  who  survived  the  sword 
of  Joshua,  did  actually  continue  to  dwell  at  Gath.  Thus 
in  the  mouth  of  three  witnesses — Moses,  Joshua,  and 
Samuel,  is  the  word  established  ;  concurring  as  they  do,  in 
a  manner  the  most  artless  and  satisfactory,  to  confirm  one 
particular  at  least  in  this  singular  exploit  of  David.  One 
particular,  and  that  a  hinge  upon  which  the  whole  moves, 
is  discovered  to  be  matter  of  fact  beyond  all  question  ;  ana 
therefore,  in  the  absence  of  all  evidence  whatever  to  the 
contrary,  I  am  disposed  to  believe  the  other  particulars  of 
the  same  history  to  be  matter  of  fact  too.  Yet  there  are 
many,  I  will  not  say  miraculous,  but  certainly  most  provi- 
dential circumstances  involved  in  it ;  circumstances  argu- 
ing, and  meant  to  argue,  the  invisible  hand  by  which 
David  fought,  and  Goliath  fell.  The  stripling  from  the 
sheepfold  withstanding  the  man  of  war  from  his  youth — 
the  ruddy  boy,  his  carriage  and  his  cheeses  left  for  the 
moment,  hearing  and  rejoicing  both  to  hear  and  accept 
the  challenge,  which  struck  terror  into  the  veterans  of 
Israel — the  shepherd's  bag,  with  five  smooth  stones,  and  no 
more,  (such  assurance  did  he  feel  of  speedy  success,)  op- 
posed to  the  helmet  of  brass,  and  the  coat  of  brazen  mail, 
and  the  greaves  of  brass,  and  the  gorget  of  brass,  and  the 
shield  borne  before  him,  and  the  spear  with  the  staff  like  a 
weaver's  beam — the  first  sling  of  a  pebble,  the  signal  of 
panic  and  overthrow  to  the  whole  host  of  the  Philistines — 
all  this  claims  the  character  of  more  than  an  ordinary 
event,  and  asserts,  (as  David  declared  it  to  do,)  that  "  The 
Lord  saveth  not  with  sword  and  spear ;  but  that  the  bat- 
tle is  the  Lord's,  and  that  he  gave  it  into  Israel's  hands." 

1  1  Sam.  xvii.  47. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  127 


VI. 

I  PROCEED  with  the  exploits  of  David  :  for  though  the 
coincidences  themselves  are  distinct,  they  make  up  a  story 
which  is  almost  continuous.  David,  we  are  told,  had  now 
won  the  hearts  of  all  Israel.  The  daughters  of  the  land 
sung  his  praises  in  the  dance,  and  their  words  awoke  the 
jealousy  of  Saul.  "  Saul  had  slain  his  thousands — David 
his  ten  thousands."  Accordingly  the  king,  forgetful  of  his 
obligations  to  the  gallant  deliverer  of  his  country  from  the 
yoke  of  the  Philistines,  and  regardless  of  the  claims  of  the 
husband  of  his  daughter,  sought  his  life.  Twice  he  at- 
tacked him  with  a  javelin  as  he  played  before  him  in  his 
chamber :  he  laid  an  ambuscade  about  his  house  :  he  pur- 
sued him  with  bands  of  armed  men  as  he  fled  for  his  life 
amongst  the  mountains.  David,  however,  had  less  fear  for 
himself  than  for  his  kindred, — for  himself  he  could  pro- 
vide— his  conscience  was  clear,  his  courage  good,  the  hearts 
of  his  countrymen  were  with  him,  and  God  was  on  his 
side.  But  his  name  might  bring  evil  on  his  house,  and 
the  safety  of  his  parents  was  his  first  care.  How  then  did 
he  secure  it  ?  "  And  David,"  we  read,  "  went  thence  to 
Mizpeh  of  Moab,  and  he  said  unto  the  king  of  Moab, 
Let  my  father  and  my  mother,  I  pray  thee,  come  forth, 
and  be  with  you  till  I  know  what  God  will  do  for  me. 
And  he  brought  them  before  the  king  of  Moab  ;  and  they 
dwelt  with  him  all  the  time  that  David  continued  in  the 
hold."1 

Now  why  should  David  be  disposed  to  trust  his  father 
and  mother  to  the  protection  of  the  Moabites  above  all 
others?  Saul,  it  is  true,  had  been  at  war  with  them,1 

»  I  Sam.  Mil  3,  4.  *  Ibid.  xiv.  47. 


128 


THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    II. 


whatever  he  might  then  be, — but  so  had  he  been  with 
every  people  round  about ;  with  the  Ammonites,  with  the 
Edomites,  with  the  kings  of  Zobah.  Neither  did  it  fol- 
low that  the  enemies  of  Saul,  as  a  matter  of  course,  would 
be  the  friends  of  David.  On  the  contrary,  he  was  only  re- 
garded by  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  the  land,  to  which- 
ever of  the  local  nations  they  belonged,  as  the  champion  of 
Israel ;  and  with  such  suspicion  was  he  received  amongst 
them,  notwithstanding  Saul's  known  enmity  towards  him, 
that  before  Achish  king  of  Gath  he  was  constrained  to 
feign  himself  mad,  and  so  effect  his  escape.  And  though 
he  afterwards  succeeded  in  removing  the  scruples  of  that 
prince,  and  obtained  his  confidence,  and  dwelt  in  his  land, 
yet  the  princes  of  the  Philistines,  in  general,  continued  to 
put  no  trust  in  him ;  and  when  it  was  proposed  by  Achish, 
that  he,  with  his  men,  should  go  up  with  the  armies  of  the 
Philistines  against  Israel, — and  when  he  had  actually 
joined, — "the  princes  of  the  Philistines  said  unto  him, 
Make  this  fellow  return,  that  he  may  go  to  the  place  which 
thou  hast  appointed  him  ;  and  let  him  not  go  down  with 
us  to  battle,  lest  in  the  battle  he  be  an  adversary  to  us : 
for  wherewith  should  he  reconcile  himself  unto  his  master  ? 
should  it  not  be  with  the  heads  of  these  men  7"1 

Whether,  indeed,  the  Moabites  proved  themselves  to  be 
less  suspicious  of  David  than  these,  his  other  idolatrous 
neighbors,  does  not  appear ;  nor  whether  their  subsequent 
conduct  warranted  the  trust  which  he  was  now  compelled 
to  repose  in  them.  Tradition  says,  that  they  betrayed  it, 
and  slew  his  parents ;  and  certain  it  is,  that  David,  some 
twenty  years  afterwards,  proceeded  against  them  with  sig- 
nal severity ;  for  "  he  smote  Moab,  and  measured  them 
with  a  line,  casting  them  down  to  the  ground ;  even  with 

1  1  Sam.  Txix.  4. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  129 

two  lines  measured  he  to  put  to  death,  and  with  one  full 
line  to  keep  alive."1  Something,  therefore,  had  occurred  in 
the  interval  to  excite  his  heavy  displeasure  against  them  : 
and  if  the  punishment  seems  to  have  tarried  too  long  to 
be  consistent  with  so  remote  a  cause  of  offence,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  for  fourteen  of  those  years  the  throne  of 
David  was  not  established  amongst  the  Ten  Tribes ;  and 
that,  amidst  the  domestic  disorders  of  a  new  reign,  leisure 
and  opportunity  for  taking  earlier  vengeance  upon  this 
neighboring  kingdom  might  well  be  wanting.  But  how- 
ever this  might  be,  in  Moab  David  sought  sanctuary  for 
his  father  and  mother  ;  perilous  this  decision  might  be, — 
probably  it  turned  out  so  in  fact, — but  he  was  in  a  great 
strait,  and  thought  that,  in  a  choice  of  evils,  this  was  the 
least. 

Now  what  principle  of  preference  may  be  imagined  to 
have  governed  David  when  he  committed  his  family  to  the 
dangerous  keeping  of  the  Moabites  ?  Was  it  a  mere  mat- 
ter  of  chance  ?  It  might  seem  so,  as  far  as  appears  to  the 
contrary  in  David's  history,  given  in  the  Books  of  Samuel ; 
and  if  the  Book  of  Ruth  had  never  come  down  to  us,  to 
accident  it  probably  would  have  been  ascribed.  But  this 
short  and  beautiful  historical  document  shows  us  a  pro- 
priety in  the  selection  of  Moab  above  any  other  for  a  place 
of  refuge  to  the  father  and  mother  of  David  ;  since  it  is 
there  seen  that  the  grandmother  of  Jesse,  David's  father, 
was  actually  a  Moabitess ;  Ruth  being  the  mother  of 
Obed,  and  Obed  the  father  of  Jesse.2  And,  moreover,  that 
Orpah,  the  other  Moabitess,  who  married  Mahlon  at  the 
time  when  Ruth  married  Chilion  his  brother,  remained  be- 
hind in  Moab  after  the  departure  of  Naomi  and  Ruth,  and 
remained  behind  with  a  strong  feeling  of  affection,  never- 

i  2  Sam.  viii.  2.  «  Ruth  i*.  17. 


130  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    II 

theless,  for  the  family  and  kindred  of  her  deceased  hus- 
band, taking  leave  of  them  with  tears.1  She  herself  then, 
or,  at  all  events,  her  descendants  and  friends,  might  still 
be  alive.  Some  regard  for  the  posterity  of  Ruth,  David 
would  persuade  himself,  might  still  survive  amongst  them. 
An  interval  of  fifty  years,  for  it  probably  was  not  more, 
was  not  likely,  he  might  think,  to  have  worn  out  the 
memory  and  the  feelings  of  the  relationship,  in  a  country 
and  at  a  period  which  acknowledged  the  ties  of  family  to 
be  long  and  strong,  and  the  blood  to  be  the  life  thereof. 

Thus  do  we  detect,  not  without  some  pains,  a  certain 
fitness  in  the  conduct  of  David  in  this  transaction,  which 
marks  it  to  be  a  real  one.  The  forger  of  a  story  could  not 
have  fallen  upon  the  happy  device  of  sheltering  Jesse  in 
Moab,  simply  on  the  recollection  of  his  Moabitish  extrac- 
tion two  generations  earlier  ;  or,  having  fallen  upon  it,  it  is 
probable  he  would  have  taken  care  to  draw  the  attention 
of  his  readers  towards  his  device  by  some  means  or  other, 
lest  the  evidence  it  was  intended  to  afford  of  the  truth  of 
the  history  might  be  thrown  away  upon  them.  As  it  is, 
the  circumstance  itself  is  asserted  without  the  smallest  at- 
tempt to  explain  or  account  for  it.  Nay,  recourse  must  be 
had  to  another  book  of  Scripture,  in  order  that  the  coinci- 
dence may  be  seen. 


VII. 

EVENTS  roll  on,  and  another  incident  in  the  life  of  Da- 
vid now  offers  itself,  which  also  argues  the  truth  of  what 
we  read  concerning  him.  "  And  Michal,  Saul's  daughter, 
loved  David,"  we  are  told.2  On  becoming  his  wife,  she 

»  Ruth  i.  17.  *  1  Sam.  zviii.  20. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  131 

gave  further  proof  of  her  affection  for  him,  by  risking  the 
vengeance  of  Saul  her  father,  when  she  let  David  through 
the  window  that  he  might  escape,  and  made  an  image  and 
put  it  in  the  bed,  to  deceive  Saul's  messengers.1  After  this, 
untoward  circumstances  produced  a  temporary  separation 
of  David  and  Michal.  She  remains  in  her  father's  custody, 
—and  Saul,  who  was  the  tyrant  of  his  family,  as  well  as 
of  his  people,  gives  her  "  unto  Phaltiel,  the  son  of  Laish,rt 
to  wife.  Meanwhile  David,  in  his  turn,  takes  Abigail 
the  widow  of  Nabal,  and  Ahinoam  of  Jezreel,  to  be  his 
wives  ;  and  continues  the  fugitive  life  he  had  been  so  long 
constrained  to  adopt  for  his  safety.  Years  pass  away,  and 
with  them  a  multitude  of  transactions  foreign  to  the  sub- 
ject I  have  now  before  me.  Saul  however  is  slain  ;  but  a 
formidable  faction  of  his  friends,  and  the  friends  of  his 
house,  still  survives.  Abner,  the  late  monarch's  captain, 
and  Ish-bosheth,  his  son  and  successor  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  put  themselves  at  its  head.  But  David  waxing 
stronger  every  day,  and  a  feud  having  sprung  up  between 
the  prince  and  this  his  officer,  overtures  of  submission  are 
made  and  accepted,  of  which  the  following  is  the  substance  : 
"  And  Abner  sent  messengers  to  David  on  his  behalf,  say- 
ing, Whose  is  the  land  ?  saying,  also,  Make  thy  league 
with  me,  and  behold,  my  hand  shall  be  with  thee  to  bring 
about  all  Israel  unto  thee.  And  he  said,  Well,  I  will  make 
a  league  with  thee  ;  but  one  thing  I  require  of  thee — that 
is,  Thou  shalt  not  see  my  face,  except  thou  first  bring  Mi- 
chal, Saul's  daughter,  when  thou  comest  to  see  my  face. 
And  David  sent  messengers  to  Ish-bosheth,  Saul's  son,  say- 
ing, Deliver  me  my  wife  Michal,  whom  I  espoused  to  me. 
And  Ish-bosheth  sent  and  took  her  from  her  husband,  even 
from  Phaltiel  the  eon  of  Laish.  And  her  husband  went 

1  1  Sam.  xix.  12. 


132  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    II. 

with  her  along,  weeping  behind  her  to  Bahurim.  Then 
said  Abner  unto  him,  Go,  return ;  and  he  returned."1  It 
is  probable,  therefore,  that  Michal  and  Phaltiel  parted  very 
reluctantly.  She  had  evidently  gained  his  affections ;  he, 
most  likely,  had  won  hers :  and  in  the  meantime  she  had 
been  supplanted,  (so  at  least  she  might  think,)  in  David's 
house  and  heart,  by  Abigail  and  Ahinoam.  These  were 
not  propitious  circumstances,  under  which  to  return  to 
the  husband  of  her  youth.  The  effect,  indeed,  they  were 
likely  to  have  upon  her  conduct  is  not  even  hinted  at  in  the 
remotest  degree  in  the  narrative ;  but  they  supply  us,  how- 
ever, incidentally  with  the  link  that  couples  Michal  in  her 
first  character,  with  Michal  in  her  second  and  later  charac- 
ter ;  for  the  difference  between  them  is  marked,  though  it 
might  escape  us  on  a  superficial  glance ;  and  if  our  atten- 
tion did  not  happen  to  be  arrested  by  the  events  of  the  in- 
terval, it  would  almost  infallibly  escape  us.  The  last  act 
then,  in  which  we  left  Michal  engaged,  was  one  of  loyal 
attachment  to  David — saving  his  life,  probably  at  great 
risk  of  her  own ;  for  Saul  had  actually  attempted  to  put 
Jonathan  his  son  to  death  for  David's  sake,  and  why 
should  he  spare  Michal  his  daughter  ?2  Her  subsequent 
marriage  with  Phaltiel  was  Saul's  business ;  it  might,  or 
might  not,  be  with  her  consent :  an  act  of  conjugal  devo- 
tion to  David  was  the  last  scene  in  which  she  was,  to 
our  knowledge,  a  voluntary  actor.  Now  let  us  mark  the 
next, — not  the  next  event  recorded  in  order,  for  we  lose 
sight  of  Michal  for  a  season, — but  the  next  in  which  she 
is  a  party  concerned  ;  at  the  same  time  remembering  that 
the  Books  of  Samuel  do  not  offer  the  slightest  explanation 
of  the  contrast  which  her  former  and  latter  self  present,  or 
the  least  allusion  to  the  change.  David  brings  the  Ark 

»  2  Sam.  iii.  12—16.  *  1  Sam.  zx.  33. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  133 

from  Kirjath-jearim,  where  it  had  been  abiding  since  it  was 
recovered  from  the  Philistines,  to  his  own  city.  He  dances 
before  it,  girded  with  the  priestly  or  prophetical  vest,  the 
linen  ephod,  and  probably  chanting  his  own  noV  le  1  ymn, 
"  Lift  up  your  heads,  O  ye  gates !  and  be  ye  L.  t  up,  ye 
everlasting  doors,  and  the  King  of  Glory  shall  come  in  !"1 
Michal,  in  that  hour,  no  doubt,  felt  and  reflected  the  joy  of 
her  husband  !  She  had  shared  with  him  the  day  of  ad- 
versity— she  was  now  called  to  be  partaker  of  his  triumph  ! 
How  read  we  ?  The  reverse  of  all  this.  "  Then  did  Mi- 
chal, Saul's  daughter,  look  through  a  window,  and  saw 
king  David  leaping  and  dancing  before  the  Lord,  and  she 
despised  him  in  her  heart."*  Nor  did  she  confine  her- 
self to  contemptuous  silence :  for  when  he  had  now  set  up 
the  Ark  in  the  midst  of  the  tabernacle,  and  had  blessed 
the  people,  he  came  unto  his  own  household  prepared,  in 
the  joy  and  devotion  of  the  moment,  to  bless  that  also. 
How  then  is  he  received  by  the  wife  wb°*ii  he  had  twice 
won  at  the  hazard  of  his  own  life,  and  w  ho  had  in  return 
shown  herself  heretofore  ready  to  sacrifice  her  own  safety 
for  his  preservation  ?  Thus  it  was.  "  Michal  carne  out  to 
meet  him,  and  said,  How  glorious  was  the  king  of  Israel 
to-day  in  the  eyes  of  the  handmaids  of  his  servants ! — as 
one  of  the  vain  fellows  shamelessly  uncovereth  himself." 
Here  was  a  burst  of  ill  temper,  which  rather  made  an  oc- 
casion for  showing  itself,  than  sought  one.  Accordingly, 
David  replies  with  spirit,  and  with  a  righteous  zeal  for  the 
honor  of  God, — not  without  an  allusion  (as  I  think)  to  the 
secret,  but  true  cause  of  this  splenetic  attack, — "  It  was  be- 
fore the  Lord,  which  chose  me  before  thy  father,  and  be- 
fore all  his  house,  to  appoint  me  ruler  over  the  people  of 
the  Lord,  over  Israel :  therefore  will  I  play  before  the  Lord. 

i  Psalm  xxiv.  7.  a  2  Sam.  vi.  76. 


134 


THE    VERACI'l  f   OF    THE  PART    II. 


And  I  will  yet  be  more  vile  tban  this,  and  will  be  base  in 
mine  own  sight ;  and  of  the  maid-servants  which,  thou 
hast  spoken  of,  of  them  shall  I  be  had  in  honor. /l  In 
these  handmaids  or  maid-servants,  which  are  so  promi- 
nently set  forth,  I  recognize,  if  I  mistake  not,  Abigail  and 
Ahinoam,  the  rivals  of  Michal ;  and  the  very  pointed  re- 
buke which  the  insinuation  provokes  from  David,  appears 
to  me  to  indicate,  that  (whatever  she  might  affect)  he  felt 
that  the  gravamen  of  her  pretended  concern  for  his  debase- 
ment did,  in  truth,  rest  here.  And  may  I  not  add,  that  the 
winding  up  of  this  singular  incident,  "  Therefore  Michalj 
the  daughter  of  Saul,  had  no  child  unto  the  day  of  hei 
death,"  well  accords  with  my  suspicions  ;  and  that  whether 
it  be  hereby  meant  that  God  judged  her,  or  that  David  di- 
vorced her,  there  is  still  something  in  the  nature  of  her 
punishment  appropriate  to  the  nature  of  her  transgres- 
sion? 

On  the  whole,  Michal  is  now  no  longer  what  Michal 
was — but  she  is  precisely  what,  from  the  new  position  in 
which  she  stands,  we  might  expect  her  to  be.  Yet  it  is  by 
the  merest  glimpses  of  the  history  of  David  and  her  own, 
that  we  are  enabled  to  account  for  the  change.  The 
fact  is  not  formally  explained  ;  it  is  not  even  formally  as- 
serted. All  that  appears,  is  a  marked  inconsistency  in  the 
conduct  of  Michal,  at  two  different  points  of  time ;  and 
when  we  look  about  for  an  explar*  tion,  we  perceive  in  the 
corresponding  fortunes  of  D?  .d  as  compared  with  her 
own  during  the  interval,  a  *  ,y  natural,  though  after  all 
only  a  conjectural,  explanation. 

Herein,  I  again  repeat,  are  the  characters  of  truth, — • 
incidents  dropping  into  their  places  without  care  or  contri- 
vance,— the  fragments  of  an  imperfect  figure  recovered  out 

-  2  Sam.  vi.  21,  22. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES 

of  a  mass  of  material,  and  found  to  be  still  its  componen* 
parts,  however  they  might  not  seem  such  when  individu 
ally  examined. 

And  here  let  me  remark,  (for  I  have  been  unwilling  tc 
interrupt  my  argument  for  the  purpose  of  collateral  expla- 
nation, and  yet  without  it  I  may  be  thought  to  have  pur- 
chased the  evidence  at  some  expense  of  the  moral,)  that 
the  practice  of  polygamy,  which  was  not  from  the  begin- 
ning, but  which  Lamech  first  adopted,  probably  in  the 
hope  of  multiplying  his  issue,  and  so  possessing  himself 
of  that  **  seed,"  which  was  now  the  "desire  of  the  nations," 
— a  desire  which  serves  as  a  key  (the  only  satisfactory 
one,  I  think)  to  much  of  the  conduct  of  the  Patriarchs, — 
the  practice  of  polygamy,  I  say,  thus  introduced,  continued, 
in  David's  time,  not  positively  condemned  ;  Moses  having 
been  only  commissioned  to  regulate  some  of  the  abuses  to 
which  it  led ;  and  though  his  writing  of  divorcement 
must  be  considered  as  making  allowance  for  the  hardness 
of  heart  of  those  for  whom  he  was  legislating,  (our  Lord 
himself  so  considers  it,) — a  hardness  of  heart  confirmed  by 
a  long  and  slavish  residence  in  a  most  polluted  land ;  still 
that  writing,  lax  as  it  might  be,  was  no  doubt,  in  itself  a 
restrictive  law,  as  matters  then  stood.  The  provisions  of 
the  Levitical  code  in  general,  and  the  extremely  gross 
state  of  society  they  argue,  prove  that  it  must  have  been  a 
restrictive  law,  an  improvement  upon  past  practices  at 
least.  And  when  the  times  of  the  Gospel  approached,  and 
a  better  dispensation  began  to  dawn,  the  Almighty  pre- 
pared the  world,  by  the  mouth  of  a  Prophet,  to  expect 
those  restrictions  to  be  drawn  closer, — Malachi  being  com  - 
manded  to  proclaim  what  had  not  been  proclaimed  before, 
that  God  "  hated  putting  ^iway."2  And  when  at  length 

i  Matt.  xix.  8.    On  thb  subject,  see  Origen,  Ep.  ad  African.  $  8. 
a  Mai.  ii.  16. 


136  THE    VERACITY   OP    THE  PART    II. 

mankind  were  ripe  for  a  more  wholesome  decree,  Christ 
himself  pronounced  it,  and  thenceforward,  "  A  man  was 
to  cleave  unto  his  wife,"  and  "  they  twain  were  to  be  one 
flesh,"  and  by  none  were  they  "  to  be  put  asunder,  God 
having  joined  them  together."1  A  progressive  scheme  this 
— agreeable  to  that  general  plan  by  which  the  Almighty 
seems  to  be  almost  always  guided  in  his  government — 
the  development  of  that  same  principle  by  which  the  law 
against  murder  was  passed  for  an  age  that  was  full  of  vio- 
lence ;  and  was  afterwards  sublimed  into  a  law  against 
malice :  by  which  the  law  against  adultery  was  provided 
for  a  carnal  and  grovelling  generation ;  and  was  after- 
wards refined  into  a  law  against  concupiscence :  by  which 
the  law  of  strict  retaliation,  and  no  more,  eye  for  eye,  and 
tooth  for  tooth — a  law,  low  and  ungenerous  as  it  may 
now  be  thought,  nevertheless  in  advance  of  the  people  for 
whom  it  was  enacted,  and  better  than  the  law  of  the 
strongest — afterwards  gave  place  to  that  other  and  nobler 
law,  "  resist  not  evil."  And  it  may  be  observed,  that  the 
very  case  of  divorce,  (and  polygamy  is  closely  connected 
with  it,)  is  actually  in  the  contemplation  of  our  Lord,  when 
he  is  thus  exhibiting  to  the  Jews  the  more  elevated  stand- 
ard of  Christian  morals,  and  is  ever  contrasting,  as  he  pro- 
ceeds,— v{  It  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,"  with  his  own 
more  excellent  way,  "but  I  say  unto  you  ;"  as  if  in  times 
past,  according  to  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  "  God  suffered 
nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways,"2  for  some  wise  pur- 
pose, and  for  a  while  "winked  at  that  ignorance."3 

*  Mark  x.  7;  2  Cor.  xi.  2.  2  Acts  xiv.  16.  Ibid.  xvii.  30, 

• 


PART   II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  1?T 


VIII. 

BUT  there  is  another  circumstance  connected  with  this 
removal  of  the  Ark  of  God  to  Jerusalem,  which  bespeaks, 
like  the  last,  the  fidelity  with  which  the  tale  is  told.  It 
was  the  intention  of  David  to  have  conveyed  this  emblem 
of  God's  presence  with  his  people  from  Kirjath-jearim 
(from  Ephratah,  where  they  found  it  in  the  wood)3  at  once 
to  his  own  city.  An  incident,  however,  of  which  I  shall 
presently  speak,  occurred  to  shake  his  purpose  and  change 
his  plan.  "  So  David,'1  we  read  upon  this,  "  would  not  re- 
move the  Ark  of  the  Lord  unto  him  into  the  city  of  David  ; 
but  David  carried  it  aside  into  the  house  of  Obed-Edom, 
the  Grittite"*  Now  what  regulated  David  in  choosing 
the  house  of  Obed-Edom  as  a  resting-place  for  the  Ark  1 
Was  it  an  affair  of  mere  chance  1  It  might  be  so ;  no 
motive  whatever,  for  the  selection  of  his  house  above  that 
of  another  man,  is  assigned — but  this  we  are  taught,  that 
"  when  the  cart  which  bare  the  Ark  came  to  Nachor's 
threshing-floor,  Uzzah  put  forth  his  hand  and  took  hold 
of  it,  for  the  oxen  shook  it; — and  the  anger  of  the 
Lord  was  kindled  against  Uzzah,  and  God  smote  him 
there  for  his  error,  and  he  died  by  the  Ark  of  God."3  It 
had  been  commanded,  as  we  find  in  the  seventh  chapter 
of  the  Book  of  Numbers,  (v.  9,)  that  the  Ark  should  be 
borne  on  the  shoulders  of  the  Levites — David,  however, 
had  placed  it  in  a  cart  after  the  fashion  of  the  Philistines' 
idols,  and  had  neglected  the  Levitical  precept.  The  sud- 
den death  of  Uzzah,  and  the  nature  of  his  offence,  alarms 
him,  sets  him  to  think,  reminds  him  of  his  neglect,  and  he 

i  Pa.  cxxxii.  6.  22  Sam.  vi.  10.  3  ibid.  vi.  G 

12* 


138  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART  II. 

turns  to  the  house  of  Obed-Edom,  the  Gittite.  The  epi- 
thet here  so  incidentally  annnexed  to  the  name  of  Obed- 
Edom,  enables  us  to  answer  the  question,  wherefore  David 
chose  the  house  of  this  man,  with  some  probability  of  be- 
ing" right  in  our  conjecture.  For  we  learn  from  the  Book 
of  Joshua,  that  Gath  (distinguished  from  other  towns  of 
the  same  name,  by  the  addition  of  Rimmon)1  was  one  of 
the  cities  of  the  Levites  ;  nor  of  the  Levites  only,  but  of 
the  KohathiteS)  (v.  20,)  the  very  family  specially  set  apart 
from  the  Levites,  that  "  they  should  bear  the  Ark  upon 
their  shoulders."2  If,  therefore,  Obed-Edom  was  called 
the  Gittite,  from  this  Gath,  as  he  doubtless  was  so  called 
from  some  Gath  or  other,  then  must  he  have  been  a  Le- 
vite  ;  and  more  than  this  actually  a  Kohathite  ;  so  that  he 
would  be  strictly  in  his  office  when  keeping  the  Ark  ;  and 
because  he  was  so,  he  was  selected ;  David  causing  the 
Ark  to  be  "  carried  aside,"  or  out  of  the  direct  road,  (for 
that  is  the  force  of  the  expression,)3  precisely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  depositing  it  with  a  man  of  an  order,  and  of  a  pe- 
culiar division  of  that  order,  which  God  had  chosen  for 
his  Ark-bearers.  Accordingly,  we  read  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Chronicles,  where  a  fuller  ac- 
count, in  some  particulars,  is  given,  than  in  the  parallel 
passage  of  Samuel,  of  the  final  removal  of  the  Ark,  from 
under  the  roof  of  Obed-Edom  to  Jerusalem,  that  the  pro- 
feme  cart  was  no  longer  employed  on  this  occasion,  but 
the  more  reverential  mode  of  conveyance,  and  that  which 
the  law  enjoined,  was  now  strictly  adopted  in  its  stead ; 
(v.  15  ;)  and  moreover  that  Obed-Edom  was  appointed  to 
take  an  active  part  in  the  ceremonial,  (v.  18.  24.) 

This  I  look  upon  as  a  coincidence  of  some  value — (sup- 

i  Joshua  xxi.  24.  2  Numb.  vii.  9. 

3  See  Numb.  xx.  17.  where  the  same  Hebrew  word  is  used,  and  xxii.  93. 


PART  n.  HISTORICAL  SCRIPTURES.  139 

posing  it,  of  course,  to  be  fairly  made  out) — of  some  value, 
I  iuean,  even  independently  of  its  general  bearing  upon 
the  credibility  of  Scripture ;  for  it  is  a  touch  of  truth  in 
the  circumstantial  details  of  an  event  which  is  in  its  nature 
miraculous.  This  it  establishes  as  a  fact,  that,  for  some 
reason  or  other,  David  went  out  of  his  way  to  deposit  the 
Ark  with  an  individual  of  a  family  whose  particular  pro- 
vince it  was  to  serve  and  bear  the  Ark.  This,  I  say,  is 
established  by  the  coincidence  as  a  fact — and  here,  taking 
my  stand  with  substantial  ground  under  my  feet,  I  can 
with  safety,  and  without  violence,  gradually  feel  my  way 
along  through  the  inconvenience  which  prompted  this  de- 
viation from  the  direct  path  ;  this  change  in  the  mode  of 
conveyance;  this  sudden  reverence  for  the  laws  of  the 
Ark  ;  even  up  to  the  disaster  which  befell  the  rash  and  un- 
consecrated  Uzzah,  and  the  caution  and  alarm  it  inspired, 
as  being  a  manifest  interposition  of  God  for  the  vindica 
tion  of  his  honor ;  and  when  I  find  the  apparently  trivial 
appellation  of  the  Gittite,  thus  pleading  for  the  reality  of 
a  marvellous  act  of  the  Almighty,  I  am  reminded  how 
carefully  we  should  gather  up  every  word  of  Scripture  that 
nothing  be  lost ;  and  I  am  led  to  contemplate  the  precau- 
tions, the  superstitious  precautions  of  the  Rabbins,  if  you 
will,  that  one  jot  or  one  tittle  may  not  be  suffered  to  pass 
from  the  text  of  the  law,  not  without  respect,  as  if  its  every 
letter  might  contain  some  hidden  treasure,  some  unsus- 
pected fount,  from  which  virtue  might  happily  go  out  for 
evidence,  for  doctrine,  or  for  duty. 


IX. 

are  now  arrived  a:  another  incident  in  the  history 
of  David — for  I  must  still   call  your  attention  to  the  me- 


140  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

moirs  of  that  extraordinary  person,  as  exhibiting  marks  cJ 
truth  and  reality,  numerous  perhaps  beyond  those  which 
any  other  character  of  the  same  antiquity  presents — an  in- 
cident which  has  been  accounted,  and  most  justly,  ac- 
counted, the  reproach  of  his  life.  The  province  which  I 
have  marked  out  for  myself  in  this  work,  is  the  evidence 
for  the  veracity  of  the  sacred  historians,  and  not  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  moral  difficulties  which  the  history  itself 
may  sometimes  involve.  In  the  present  instance,  however, 
the  very  coincidence  which  establishes  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  history,  may  serve  also  to  remove  some  stumbling- 
blocks  out  of  the  sceptic's  path,  and  vindicate  the  ways  of 
God  to  man. 

That  the  man  after  God's  own  heart  should  have  so 
fallen  from  his  high  estate,  as  to  become  the  adulterer  and 
the  assassin,  has  been  ever  urged  with  great  effect  by  un- 
believers ;  and  this  very  consequence  of  David's  sin  was 
foreseen  and  foretold  by  Nathan  the  prophet,  when  he  ap- 
proached the  king,  bearing  with  him  the  rebuke  of  God  on 
his  tongue,  and  saying,  "  By  this  deed  thou  hast  given 
great  occasion  to  the  enemies  of  God  to  blaspheme." 
Such  has  indeed  been  its  effect  from  the  day  when  it  was 
first  done  unto  this  day,  and  such  probably  will  its  effect 
continue  to  be  unto  the  end  of  time.  David's  transgres- 
sion, committed  almost  three  thousand  years  ago,  sheds, 
in  some  sort,  an  evil  influence  on  the  cause  of  David's 
God  even  now.  So  wide-wasting  is  the  mischief  which 
flows  from  the  lapse  of  a  righteous  man  ;  so  great  the  dark- 
ness becomes,  when  the  light  that  is  amongst  us  is  dark- 
ness !  But  was  David  the  man  after  God's  own  heart 
here?  It  were  blasphemy  to  suppose  it.  That  the  sin 
of  David  was  fulfilling  some  righteous  judgment  of  God 
against  Uriah  and  his  house,  I  doubt  not — for  God  often 
makes  hh  enemies  his  instruments,  and  without  sanctify- 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES;  141 

ing  the  means,  strikes  out  of  them  good.  Still  a  sin  it  was, 
great  and  grievous,  offensive  to  that  God  to  whom  the 
blood  of  Uriah  cried  from  the  ground.  And  this  the  Al- 
mighty proclaimed  even  more  loudly  perhaps  by  suffering 
David  to  live,  than  if,  in  the  sudden  burst  of  his  instant 
displeasure,  he  had  slain  him.  For,  at  the  period  when 
the  king  of  Israel  fell  under  this  sad  temptation,  he  was  at 
the  very  height  of  his  glory  and  his  strength.  The  king- 
dom of  Israel  had  never  so  flourished  before ;  it  was  the 
first  of  the  nations.  He  had  thoroughly  subdued  the  Phil- 
istines, that  mighty  people,  who  in  his  youth  had  com- 
pelled all  the  Israelites  to  come  down  to  their  quarters, 
even  to  sharpen  their  mattocks,  so  rigid  was  the  exercise 
of  their  rule.  He  had  smitten  the  Moabites,  on  the  other 
side  Jordan,  once  themselves  the  oppressors  of  Israel,  mak- 
ing them  tributaries.  He  had  subdued  the  Edomites,  a 
race  that  delighted  in  war ;  and  had  stationed  his  troops 
throughout  all  their  territories.  He  had  possessed  himself 
of  the  independent  kingdom  of  the  Syrians,  and  garrisoned 
Damascus,  their  capital.  He  had  extended  his  frontier 
eastward  to  the  Euphrates,1  though  never  perhaps  beyond 
it  ;2  and  he  was  on  the  point  of  reducing  the  Ammonites, 
whose  city,  Rabbah,  his  generals  were  besieging  ;  and  thus, 
the  whole  of  the  promised  land,  with  the  exception  of  the 
small  state  of  Tyre,  which  the  Israelites  never  appear  to 
have  conquered,  was  now  his  own.  Prosperity,  perhaps, 
had  blinded  his  eyes,  and  hardened  his  heart.  The  treas- 
ures which  he  had  amassed,  and  the  ease  which  he  had 
fought  for  and  won,  had  made  him  luxurious  ;  for  now  it 
was,  that  the  once  innocent  son  of  Jesse  the  Bethlehemite, 
— he  who  had  been  taken  from  the  sheep-folds  because  an 
excellent  spirit  was  in  him,  and  who  had  hitherto  pros- 

»  2  Sam.  viii.  «  See  Ezra  iv.  20. 


142 


THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    II. 


pered  in  all  that  he  had  set  his  hand  unto, — it  was  now  that 
thii  man  was  tempted  and  fell.     And  now  mark  the  re- 
mainder of  his  days — God  eventually  forgave  him,  for  he 
repented  him  (as  his  penitential  psalms  still  most  affect 
ingly  attest),  in  the  bitterness  and  anguish  of  his  soul , 
but  God  dried  up  all  the  sources  of  his  earthly  blessings 
thenceforward  forever.     With  this  sin  the  sorrow  of  his 
life  began,  and  the  curse  which  the  prophet  denounced 
against  him,  sat  heavy  on  his  spirit  to  the  last ;  a  curse — 
and  I  beg  attention  to  this — which  has  a  peculiar  reference 
to  the  nature  of  his  crime  ;  as  though  upon  this  offence 
all  his  future  miseries  and  misfortunes  were  to  turn ;  as 
though  he  was  only  spared  from  the  avenger's  violent  hand 
to  be  made  a  spectacle  of  righteous  suffering  to  the  world. 
He  had  committed  murder  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and 
therefore  the  sword  was  never  to  depart  from  his  house. 
He  had  despised  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  (so  Nathan 
expressly  says),  and  taken  the  wife  of  another  to  be  his 
wife ;  therefore  were  his  own  wives  to  be  taken  from  him, 
and  given  to   his  neighbor  in   turn.     The   complexion, 
therefore,  of  his  remaining  years,  was  set  by  this  one  fatal 
deed  of  darkness,  (let  none  think  or  say  that  it  was  lightly 
regarded  by  the  Almighty,)  and  having  become  the  man 
of  blood,  of  blood  he  was  to  drink  deep  ;  and  having  be- 
come the  man  of  lust,  by  that  same  baneful  passion  in 
others  was  he  himself  to  be  scourged  forever.     Now  the 
manner  in  which  these  tremendous  threats  are  fulfilled  is 
very  remarkable  ;  for  it  is  done  by  way  of  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  sin  itself ;  a  dispensation  which  I  have  not 
seen  developed  as  it  deserves  to  be,  though  the  facts  of  the 
history   furnish   very  striking  materials  for  the   purpose. 
And  herein  lies  the  coincidence,  to  which  the  remarks  I 
have  hitherto  been  making  are  a  needful  prologue. 

By  the  rebellion  of  Absalom  it  was  that  these  menaces 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  143 

of  the  Almighty  Judge  of  all  the  earth  were  accomplished 
with  a  fearful  fidelity. 

Absalom  was  able  to  draw  after  him  the  hearts  of  all  the 
people  as  one  man.  And  what  was  it  that  armed  him 
with  this  moral  strength  ?  What  was  it  that  gave  him 
the  means  of  unseating  his  father  in  the  affections  of  a 
loyal  people  ? — The  king  whom  they  had  so  greatly  loved 
— who  had  raised  the  name  of  Israel  to  a  pitch  of  glory 
never  attained  unto  before — whose  praises  had  been  sung 
by  the  mothers  and  maidens  of  Israel,  as  the  champion  to 
whom  none  other  was  like  ?  How  could  he  steal  away 
the  hearts  of  the  people  from  such  a  man,  with  so  little 
effort,  and  apparently  with  so  little  reason  ?  I  believe  that 
this  very  sin  of  David  was  made  the  engine  by  which  his 
throne  was  shaken  ;  for  I  observe  that  the  chief  instrument 
in  the  conspiracy  was  Ahithophel.  No  sooner  was  Absa- 
lom determined  upon  his  daring  deed,  than  he  looks  to 
Ahithophel  for  help.  He  appears,  for  some  reason  or  other 
not  mentioned,  to  have  quite  reckoned  upon  him  as  well- 
affected  to  his  cause,  as  ready  to  join  him  in  it  heart  and 
hand  ;  and  he  did  not  find  himself  mistaken.  "  Absalom," 
I  read,1  "  sent  for  Ahithophel  the  Gilonite,  David's  coun- 
sellor, from  his  city,  even  from  Giloh,  while  he  offered  sac- 
rifices— and  tl.e  conspiracy,"  (it  is  forthwith  added,  as 
though  Ahitnophel  was  a  host  in  himself, )  "  was  strong ; 
for  the  people  increased  continually  with  Absalom."  David, 
upon  this,  takes  alarm,  and  makes  it  the  subject  of  his 
earnest  prayer  to  God,  that  "  he  would  turn  the  counsel  of 
Ahithophel  into  foolishness."  Nor  is  this  to  be  wondered 
at,  when  we  are  told  in  another  place  that  "  the  counsel 
of  Ahithophel,  which  he  counselled  in  those  days,  was  as 
if  a  man  had  inquired  at  the  oracle  of  God :  so  was  all 

i  2  Sam.  xv.  12. 


144  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    II. 

the  counsel  of  Ahithophel,  both  with  David  and  with  Ab- 
salom."1 He  therefore  was  the  sinews  of  Absalom's  cause. 
Of  his  character,  and  the  influence  which  he  possessed 
over  the  people,  Absalom  availed  himself,  both  to  sink  the 
spirits  of  David's  party,  and  to  inspire  his  own  with  confi- 
dence, for  all  men  counted  Ahithophel  to  be  as  a  prophet. 
But  independently  of  the  weight  of  his  public  reputation, 
it  is  probable  that  certain  private  wrongs  of  his  own,  (of 
which  I  have  now  to  speak,)  at  once  prepared  him  for  ac- 
cepting Absalom's  rebellious  overtures  with  alacrity,  and 
caused  him  to  find  still  greater  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the 
people,  as  being  an  injured  man,  whom  it  was  fit  that  they 
should  avenge  of  his  adversary.  For  in  the  twenty-third 
chapter  of  the  second  Book  of  Samuel,  I  find  in  the  cata- 
logue of  David's  guardsmen,  thirty-seven  in  number,  the 
name  of  "  Eliam  the  son  of  Ahithophel  the  Gilonite"  (v. 
34.)  The  epithet  of  Gilonite  sufficiently  identifies  this 
Ahithophel  with  the  conspirator  of  the  same  name.  One, 
therefore,  of  the  thirty-seven  officers  about  David's  person, 
was  a  son  of  the  future  conspirator  against  his  throne. 
But,  in  this  same  catalogue,  I  also  meet  with  the  name  of 
Uriah  the  Hittite  (v.  39).  Eliam.  therefore,  and  Uriah 
must  have  been  thrown  much  together,  being  both  of  the 
same  rank,  and  being  each  one  of  the  thirty-seven  officers 
of  the  king's  guard.  Now,  from  the  eleventh  chapter  of 
the  second  Book  of  Samuel,  I  learn  that  Uriah  the  Hittite 
had  for  his  wife  Bath-sheba,  the  daughter  of  one  Eliam 
(v.  3).  I  look  upon  it,  therefore,  to  be  so  probable,  as  al- 
most to  amount  to  certainty,  that  this  was  the  same  Eliam 
as  before,  and  that  Uriah  (as  was  very  natural,  considering 
the  necessary  intercourse  of  the  parties)  had  married  the 
daughter  of  his  brother  officer,  and  accordingly,  the  grand- 

i  2  Sam.  xvi.  23. 


PART   II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  145 

daughter  of  AhithopheL  I  feel  that  I  now  have  the  key  to  the 
conduct  of  this  leading  conspirator ;  the  sage  and  prudent  friend 
of  David  converted,  by  some  means  or  other,  into  his  deadly  foe — 
for  I  now  perceive,  that  when  David  murdered  Uriah,  he  murder- 
ed AhithophePs  grandson  by  marriage,  and  when  he  corrupted 
Bath-sheba,  he  corrupted  his  grandmother  by  blood.  Well  then, 
after  this  disaster  and  dishonor  of  his  house,  might  revenge  rankle 
in  the  heart  of  Ahithophel !  Well  might  Absalom  know  that 
nothing  but  a  fit  opportunity  was  wanted  by  him,  that  he  might 
give  it  vent,  and  spend  his  treasured  wrath  upon  the  head  of 
David  his  wrong-doer  !  Well  might  he  approach  him  with  con- 
fidence, and  impart  to  him  his  treason,  as  a  man  who  would  wel- 
come the  news,  and  be  his  present  and  powerful  fellow-worker ! 
Well  might  the  people  who,  upon  an  appeal  like  this,  seldom  fail 
to  follow  the  dictates  of  their  better  feelings,  and  to  stand  man- 
fully by  the  injured,  find  their  allegiance  to  a  throne  defiled  with 
adultery  and  blood,  relaxed,  and  their  loyalty  transferred  to  the 
rebel's  side!  And  the  terms  in  which  Shimei  reproaches  the 
king,  when  he  follows  after  him  to  Bahurim,  casting  stones  at  him, 
not  improbably  as  expressive  of  the  legal  punishment  of  the 
adulterer,  "  Come  out,  come  out,  thou  bloody  man,  thou  man  of 
Belial  y"1  and  the  meekness  moreover  with  which  David  bows  to 
the  reproach,  accepting  it  as  a  merited  chastisement  from  God. 
"  So  let  him  curse,  because  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  him,  Curse 
David ;"  (v.  20,)  are  minute  incidents  which  testify  to  the  same  fact  . 
— to  the  popular  voice  now  lifted  up  against  David,  and  to  the  merited  •- 
cause  thereof.  Well  might  his  heart  sink  within  him,  when  he  • 
heard  that  his  ancient  counsellor  had  joined  the  ranks  of  his  enemies,- 

1  2  Sam.  xvi.  7, 
13 


146  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IT. 

and  when  he  knew  but  too  well  what  reason  he  had  given 
him  for  turning  his  arms  against  himself  in  that  unmiti- 
gated and  inextinguishable  thirst  for  vengeance  which  is. 
sweet,  however  utterly  unjustifiable,  to  all  men  so  deeply 
injured,  and  sweetest  of  all  to  the  children  of  the  East ! 
And  in  the  very  first  word  of  exhortation  which  Ahithophel 
suggests  to  Absalom,  I  detect,  or  think  1  detect,  the  wound- 
ed spirit  of  the  man  seizing  the  earliest  moment  for  inflict 
ing  a  punishment  upon  his  enemy,  ol  a  kind  that  should 
not  only  be  bitter,  but  appropriate- — the  eye  for  the  eye ; 
and  when  Absalom  said,  "  Give  counsel  among  you  what 
we  shall  do,"  and  Ahithophel  answered,  "  Go  in  unto  thy 
father's  concubines  which  he  hath  left  to  keep  the  house,"1 
he  was  not  only  moved  by  the  desire  that  the  rebellious 
son  should  stand  fairly  committed  to  his  rebellion  by  an 
unpardonable  outrage  against  the  majesty  of  an  eastern 
monarch,  but  by  the  desire  also  to  make  David  taste  the 
bitterness  of  that  cup  which  he  had  caused  others  to  drink, 
and  to  receive  the  very  measure  which  he  had  himself 
meted  withal.  And  so  it  came  to  pass,  that  Absalom  fol- 
lowed his  counsel,  and  they  spread  for  him  the  incestuous 
tent,  we  read,  on  the  top  of  the  house,  in  the  sight  of  all 
Israel,2  on  that  very  roof,  it  should  seem,  on  which  David 
at  even- tide  had  walked,  when  he  conceived  this  his  great 
sin,  upon  which  his  life  was  to  turn  as  upon  a  hinge  ;3  and 
so  again  it  came  to  pass,  and  under  circumstances  of  local 
identity  and  exposure  which  wear  the  aspect  of  strictly  judicial 
reprisals,  that  that  which  he  had  done  secretly  (his  abduction  of 
another  man's  wife),  God  did  for  him,  and  more  also,  as  he  said 
lie  would,  before  all  Israel,  and  before  the  sun.* 

Thus,  having  once   discovered  by  the  apposition  of  many 

2  Sam.  xvi.  21          2  Ib.  xvi.  22.          »  Ib.  xi.  2.          4  Ib.  xii.  12 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  147 

massages,  that  a  relation  subsisted  between  Ahithophel 
and  Uriah,  a  fact  which  the  sacred  historian  is  so  far  from 
dwelling  upon  that  he  barely  supplies  us  with  the  means 
to  establish  it  at  all,  we  see  in  the  circumstances  of  the 
conspiracy,  the  natural  recoil  of  David's  sin  ;  and  in  his 
punishment,  retributive  as  it  is,  so  strictly  retributive,  that 
it  must  have  stricken  his  conscience  as  a  judgment,  even 
had  there  been  no  warning  voice  concerning  it,  the  accom- 
plishment by  means  the  most  easy  and  unconstrained,  of 
all  that  Nathan  had  uttered,  to  the  syllable. 


X. 


THERE  is  another  incident  connected  with  this  part  of 
the  history  of  David,  which  I  have  pondered,  alternately 
accepting  and  rejecting  it,  as  still  further  corroborating 
the  opinion  I  have  expressed,  that  the  fortunes  of  David 
Turned  upon  this  one  sin — that  having  mounted  to  their 
high  mark,  they  henceforward  began,  and  continued  to 
ebb  away — this  one  sin  which,  according  to  Scripture, 
itself  eclipsed  every  other.  For  though  it  would  not  be 
difficult  to  name  sundry  instances  of  ignorance,  of  negli- 
gence, of  inconsideration,  of  infirmity  in  the  life  of  David 
besides  this,  it  is  nevertheless  said,  that  "he  did  that 
which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  and  turned  not 
aside  in  anything  that  he  commanded  him  all  the  days  of 
his  life,  save  only  in  the  matter  of  Uriah  the  Hittite"1 
1  propose,  however,  this  coincidence  for  the  reason  I  have 
said,  not  without  some  hesitation  ;  though  at  the  same 
time,  quite  without  concern  for  the  safety  of  my  cause,  it 
being,  as  I  observed  in  the  beginning  of  this  work,  a  very 

i  1  Kings  TV.  5.    See  Sanderson,  Serm.  iv.  ad  Aulam,  p.  79,  IbL 


148  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II. 

valuable  property  of  the  argument  by  which  I  am  endeav- 
oring to  establish  the  credibility  of  Scripture,  that  any 
member  of  it,  if  unsound  or  unsatisfactory,  may  be  de- 
tached without  further  injury  to  the  whole,  than  the  mere 
loss  of  that  member  entails. 

This,  therefore,  I  perceive,  or  think  I  perceive,  that 
David  became  throughly  encumbered  by  his  connection 
with  Joab,  the  captain  of  his  armies  ;  that  he  was  too 
suspicious  to  trust  him,  and  too  weak  to  dismiss  him  ;  that 
this  officer,  by  some  chance  or  other,  had  established  a 
despotic  control  over  the  king ;  and  that  it  is  not  unrea- 
sonable to  believe  (and  here  lies  the  coincidence),  that 
wnen  David  made  him  the  partner  and  secret  agent  of 
his  guilty  purpose  touching  Uriah,  he  sold  himself  into 
his  hands  ;  that  in  that  fatal  letter  he  sealed  away  his 
liberty,  and  surrendered  it  up  to  this  his  unscrupulous 
accomplice.  Certain  it  is,  that  during  all  the  latter  years 
of  his  reign,  David  was  little  more  than  a  nominal  king. 

Joab,  no  doubt,  was  by  nature  a  man  that  could  do  and 
dare — a  bold  captain  in  bad  times.  The  faction  of  Saul 
was  so  strong,  that  David  could  at  first  scarcely  call  the 
throne  his  own,  or  choose  his  servants  according  to  his 
pleasure  ;  and  Joab,  an  able  warrior,  though  sometimes 
avenging  his  own  private  quarrels  at  the  expense  of  his 
sovereign's  honor,  and  thereby  vexing  him  at  the  heart, 
was  not  to  be  displaced ;  he  was  then  too  hard  for  David, 
as  the  king  himself  complains.1  But  as  yet,  David  was 
not  tongue-tied  at  least.  He  openly,  and  without  reserve, 
reprobated  the  conduct  of  Joab  in  slaying  Abner,  though 
he  had  the  excuse,  such  as  it  was,  of  taking  away  the  life 
of  -AS  man  by  whose  hand  his  brother  Asahel  had  fallen. 
Moreover,  he  so  far  asserted  his  own  authority,  as  to  make 

i  2  Sam.  Hi.  39. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  149 

him  rend  his  clothes,  and  gird  him  with  sackcloth,  and 
mourn  before  this  very  Abner,  whom  he  had  thus  vindic- 
tively laid  low ;  doubtless  a  bitter  and  mortifying  penance 
to  a  man  of  the  stout  heart  of  Joab,  and  such  as  argued 
David,  who  insisted  upon  it,  to  be  as  yet  in  his  own  do- 
minions supreme.  Circumstances  might  constrain  him 
still  to  employ  this  famous  captain,  but  he  had  not  at  least 
(young  as  his,  authority  then  was)  yielded  himself  up  to 
his  imperious  subject.  On  the  contrary,  waxing  stronger 
as  he  did,  every  day,  and  the  remnant  of  Saul's  party  dis- 
persed, he  became  the  king  of  Israel  in  fact,  as  well  as  in 
name  ;  his  throne  established  not  only  upon  law,  but  upon 
public  opinion  too,  so  that  "  whatever  the  king  did,"  we 
are  told,  "  pleased  all  the  people."1  He  was  now  in  a  con- 
dition to  rule  for  himself,  and  for  himself  he  did  rule 
(whatever  had  become  of  Joab  in  the  mean  season) ;  for 
we  presently  find  him  appointing  that  officer  to  the  com- 
mand of  his  army  by  his  own  act  and  deed,  simply  be- 
cause he  happened  to  be  the  man  to  win  that  rank 
when  it  was  proposed  by  David  as  the  prize  of  battle 
to  any  individual  of  his  whole  host,  who  should  first 
get  up  the  gutter  and  smite  the  Jebusites  at  the  storm- 
ing of  Zion.2  And  whoever  will  peruse  the  eighth  and 
tenth  chapters  of  the  second  Book  of  Samuel,  in  which 
are  recorded  the  noble  achievements  of  David  at  this 
bright  period  of  his  life,  his  power  abroad  and  his  policy 
at  home,  the  energy  which  he  threw  into  the  national 
character,  and  the  respect  which  he  commanded  for  it 
throughout  all  the  East,  will  perceive  that  he  reigned 
without  a  restraint  and  without  a  rival.  Now  comes  the 
guilty  act;  the  fatal  stumbling-block  against  which  he 
dashed  his  foot,  and  fell  so  pernicious  a  height.  And 

i  2  Sam.  iii.  36.  *  Ib.  r.  8 ;  1  Chron.  xi.  6. 

13* 


150  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

hencefor wards  I  see,  or  imagine  I  see,  Joab  usurping  by 
degress  an  authority  which  he  had  not  before;  taking 
upon  himself  too  much  ;  executing  or  disregarding  David's 
orders,  as  it  suited  his  own  convenience  ;  and  finally  con- 
spiring against  his  throne  and  the  rightful  succession  of 
his  line.  Again  ;  I  perceive,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  hands 
of  David  tied  ;  his  efforts  to  disembarrass  himself  of  his 
oppressor,  feeble  and  ineffectual:  his  resentment  set  at 
nought;  his  punishments,  though  just,  resisted  by  his 
own  subject,  and  successfully  resisted.  For  I  find  Joab 
suggesting  to  David  the  recall  of  Absalom  after  his  ban- 
ishment, tnrough  the  widow  of  Tekoah,  in  a  manner  to 
excite  the  suspicion  of  the  king.1  "  Is  not  the  hand  of 
Joab  with  thee  in  all  this  ?"  were  words  in  which  probably 
more  was  meant  than  met  the  ear.  It  is  not  unlikely 
(though  the  passage  is  altogether  mysterious  and  obscure) 
that  there  was  then  some  secret  understanding  between 
the  soldier  and  the  future  rebel,  which  was  only  inter- 
rupted by  the  impetuosity  of  Absalom,  who  resented  Joab's 
delay,  and  set  fire  to  his  barley  ;2  an  injury  which  he 
must  have  had  some  reason  to  feel  Joab  durst  not  resent, 
and  which,  in  fact,  even  in  spite  of  the  fury  of  his  natural 
character,  he  did  not  resent.  Howbeit,  he  remembered  it 
in  the  rebellion  which  now  broke  out,  and  took  his  per- 
sonal revenge  whilst  he  was  professedly  fighting  the  battle 
of  David,  to  whom  his  interest  or  his  passion  decided  him 
for  this  time  to  be  true.  "  Deal  gently  for  my  sake  with  the 
young  man,  even  with  Absalom,"  was  the  parting  charge 
which  the  king  gave  to  this  dangerous  champion  as  he 
went  forth  with  the  host ;  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people 
he  gave  it,  and  to  all  the  captains  who  were  with  him.  It- 
was  the  thing  nearest  his  heart.  For  here  it  may  be  ob- 

3  Sam.  tfv.  19.  *  Ib.  xiv.  30. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  151 

served,  that  David's  strong  parental  feelings,  of  wh'ch  w 
have  many  occasional  glimpses,  give  an  identity  to  livs 
character,  which,  in  itself,  marks  it  to  be  a  real  one.  The 
fear  of  the  servants  to  tell  him  that  his  infant  was  dead ; l 
the  advice  of  Jonadab,  "  a  subtle  man,"  who  had  read  Da- 
vid's disposition  right,  to  Amnon,  to  feign  himself  sick, 
that  "  when  his  father  came  to  see  him"  he  might  prefer 
to  him  his  request  ;2  his  "  weeping  so  sore"  for  the  death 
of  this  son,  and  then  again,  his  anguish  subsided,  <;  his 
soul  longing  to  go  forth"  to  the  other  son  who  had  slain 
him  ;3  the  little  trait  which  escapes  in  the  history  of  Adon- 
ijah's  rebellion,  another  of  his  children,  that  "  his  father 
had  not  displeased  him  at  any  time,  in  saying,  Why  hast 
thou  done  so  ?"4  are  all  evidently  features  of  one  and  the 
same  individual.  So  these  last  instructions  to  his  officers 
touching  the  safety  of  Absalom,  even  when  he  was  in  arms 
against  him,  are  still  uttered  in  the  same  spirit ;  a  spirit 
which  seems,  even  at  this  moment,  far  more  engrossed  with 
the  care  of  his  child  than  with  the  event  of  his  battle.  "  Deal 
gently  for  my  sake  with  Absalom."  Joab  heard,  indeed, 
but  heeded  not ;  he  had  lost  all  reverence  for  the  king's 
commands ;  nothing  could  be  more  deliberate  than  his  in- 
fraction of  this  one,  probably  the  most  imperative  whick 
had  ever  been  laid  upon  him  :  it  was  not  in  the  fury  of 
the  fight  that  he  forgot  the  commission  of  mercy,  and  cut 
down  the  young  man  with  whom  he  was  importuned  to 
deal  tenderly ;  but  as  he  was  hanging  in  a  tree,  helpless 
and  hopeless  ;  himself  directed  to  the  spot  by  the  steps  of 
another ;  in  cold  blood ;  but  remembering  perhaps  his 
barley,  and  more  of  which  we  know  not,  and  caring  noth- 
ing for  a  king  whose  guilty  secret  he  had  shared,  h-s 
thrust  him  through  the  heart  with  his  three  darts,  nr* 

1  2  Sam.  xii.  18.         *  ">  xiii.  5.         »  Ib.  xiii.  36.         <  1  Kings  i.  6. 


152  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

then  made  In*  way,  with  countenance  unabashed,  into  the 
chamber  of  his  royal  master,  where  he  was  weeping  and 
mourning  for  Absalom. 

The  bitterness  of  death  must  have  been  nothing  to  Da- 
vid, compared  with  the  feelings  of  that  hour  when  his  con- 
science smote  him,  (as  it  doubtless  did)  with  the  complicated 
trouble  and  humiliation  into  which  his  deed  of  lust  and 
blood  had  thus  sunk  him  down.  The  rebellion  itself,  the 
fruit  of  it,  (as  I  hold  ;)  the  audacious  disobedience  of  Joab 
to  the  moving  entreaties  of  the  parent,  that  his  favorite 
son's  life  might  be  spared,  rebel  as  he  was.  felt  to  be  the 
fruit  of  that  sin  too ;  for  by  that  sin  it  was  that  he  had  de- 
livered himself  and  his  character  bound  hand  and  foot,  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  Joab,  who  had  no  touch  of  pity  in 
him.  The  sequel  is  of  a  piece  with  the  opening ;  Joab 
imperious,  and  David,  the  once  high-minded  David,  abject 
in  spirit  and  tame  to  the  lash.  "  Thou  hast  shamed  this 
day  the  face  of  all  thy  servants.  Arise,  go  forth,  and  speak 
comfortably  to  thy  servants ;  for  I  swear  by  the  Lord,  if 
thou  go  not  forth,  there  will  not  tarry  one  with  thee  this 
night :  and  that  will  be  worse  unto  thee  than  all  the  evil 
that  befell  thee  from  thy  youth  up  until  now."1  The  pas- 
sive king  yields  to  the  menace,  for  what  can  he  do?  and 
with  a  cheerful  countenance  and  a  broken  heart  obeys  the 
commands  of  his  subject,  and  sits  in  the  gate.  But  this  is 
not  all.  David  now  sends  a  message  to  Amasa,  a  kinsman 
whom  Absalom  had  set  over  his  rebel  army ;  it  is  a  propo- 
sal, perhaps  a  secret  proposal,  to  make  him  captain  over  his 
host  in  the  room  of  Joab.  The  measure  might  be  dictated 
at  once  by  "jolicy,  Amasa  being  now  the  leader  of  a  pow- 
erful par\/J  ^iiorn  David  had  to  win,  and  by  disgust  at  the 
re  ^nt  pe-lii!y  of  Joab,  and  a  determination  to  break  away 

1  2  Sam.  xix.  7. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  153 

from  him  at  whatever  cost.  Amasa  accepts  the  offer  ;  but 
tfi  thf  very  first  military  enterprise  on  which  he  is  dis- 
patched, Joab  accosts  him  with  the  friendly  salutation  of 
the  East,  and  availing  himself  of  the  unguarded  moment, 
draws  a  sword  from  under  his  garment,  smites  him  under 
the  fifth  rib,  and  leaves  him  a  bloody  corpse  in  the  high- 
way. Then  he  calmly  takes  upon  himself  to  execute  the 
commission  with  which  Amasa  had  been  charged  ;  and 
this  done,  "  he  returns  to  Jerusalem,"  we  read,  "  unto  the 
king,"  and  once  more  he  is  "  over  all  the  host  of  Israel." 

It  is  needless  to  point  out  how  extreme  a  helplessness  on 
the  part  of  David  this  whole  transaction  indicates.  Here 
is  the  general  of  his  own  choice  assassinated  in  an  act  of 
duty  by  his  own  subject,  his  commission  usurped  by  the 
murderer,  and  David,  once  the  most  popular  and  powerful  of 
sovereigns,  saying  not  word.  The  dishonor,  indeed,  he  felt 
keenly ;  felt  it  to  his  dying  day,  and  in  his  very  latest 
breath  gave  utterance  to  it  ;l  but  Joab  has  him  in  the  toils, 
and  extricate  himself  he  cannot.  The  want  of  cordiality 
between  them  was  now  manifest  enough,  however  the 
original  cause  might  be  conjectured,  rather  than  known ; 
and  when  Adonijah  prepares  his  revolt, — for  another  en- 
emy now  sprang  up  in  David's  own  house, — to  Joab  he 
makes  his  overtures,2  having  observed  him,  no  doubt  to  be 
a  thorn  in  the  king's  side ;  nor  are  the  overtures  rejected  ; 
and  amongst  other  facts  developed  in  this  second  conspi- 
racy, it  incidentally  appears,  that  the  ordinary  dwelling- 
place  of  Joab  was  "  in  the  wilderness  ;"3  as  if,  suspicious 
and  suspected,  a  house  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  was 
not  the  one  in  which  he  would  venture  to  lay  his  head. 
It  is  remarkable  that  this  formidable  traitor,  from  whose 
thraldom  David  in  the  flower  of  his  age,  and  the  splendor 

1  Kings  ii.  5.  a  1  Kings  i.  7.  »  Ib.  ii.  34. 


154 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 


of  his  military  renown,  could  never,  we  have  seen,  disen- 
gage himself,  fell  at  once,  and  whilst  whatever  popularity 
he  might  have  with  the  army  must  have  been  fresh  as 
ever,  before  the  arm  of  Solomon,  a  stripling,  if  not  a  beard- 
less boy ;  who,  taking  advantage  of  a  fresh  instance  of 
treachery  in  this  hardened  adventurer,  fearlessly  gave  com- 
mand to  "  fall  upon  him  and  bury  him,  that  he  might  thus 
take  away,"  as  he  said,  "  the  innocent  blood  which  Joab 
shed,  from  him,  and  from  the  house  of  his  father ;  when 
he  fell  upon  two  men  more  righteous  and  better  than  him- 
self, and  slew  them  with  the  sword,  his  father  David  not 
knowing  thereof;  to  wit,  Abner,  the  son  of  Ner,  captain  of 
the  host  of  Israel,  and  Amasa,  the  son  of  Jether,  captain  of 
the  host  of  Judah.1  But  Solomon  had  as  yet  a  clear  con- 
science, which  David  had  forfeited  with  respect  to  Joab ; 
this  it  was  that  armed  the  youth  with  a  moral  courage 
which  his  father  had  once  known  what  it  was  to  have, 
when  he  went  forth  as  a  shepherd-boy  against  Goliath, 
and  which  he  afterwards  knew  what  it  was  to  want,  when 
he  crouched  before  Joab,  as  a  king.  So  true  it  is,  the 
"  wicked  flee  when  no  man  pursueth,  but  the  righteous  is 
bold  as  a  lion." 

And  now  can  any  say  that  God  winked  at  *this  wicked- 
ness of  his  servant  ?  That  the  man  after  his  own  heart, 
for  such  in  the  main  he  was,  frail  as  he  proved  himself, 
sinned  grievously,  arid  sinned  with  impunity  !  On  the 
contrary,  this  deed  was  the  pivot  upon  which  David's  for- 
tunes turned ;  that  done,  and  he  was  undone  ;  then  did 
God  raise  up  enemies  against  him  for  it  out  of  his  own 
house,  for  "  the  thing,"  as  we  are  expressly  told,  "  displeased 
the  Lord  ,  '2  thenceforward  the  days  of  his  years  became 
full  of  evi!  and  if  he  lived,  (for  the  Lord  caused  death  to 

»      Kings,  ii.  32.  2  2  Sam 


\RT  81.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  155 

vans  from  himself  to  the  child,  by  a  vicarious  dispensation,1) 
it  was  to  be  a  king,  with  more  than  kingly  sorrows,  but 
with  little  of  kingly  power ;  to  be  banished  by  his  son ; 
bearded  by  his  servant ;  betrayed  by  his  friends ;  deserted 
by  his  people  ;  bereaved  of  his  children ;  and  to  feel  all,  all 
these  bitter  griefs,  bound,  as  it  were,  by  a  chain  of  compli- 
cated cause  and  effect,  to  this  one  great  original  transgres- 
sion. This  was  surely  no  escape  from  the  penalty  of  his 
crime,  though  it  was  still  granted  him  to  live  and  breathe 
— God  would  not  slay  even  Cain,  nor  suffer  others  to  slay 
him,  whose  punishment,  nevertheless,  was  greater  than  he 
could  bear — but  rather  it  was  a  lesson  to  him  and  to  us, 
how  dreadful  a  thing  it  is  to  tempt  the  Almighty  to  let 
loose  his  plagues  upon  us,  and  howr  true  is  he  to  his  word, 
"  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,"  saith  the  Lord. 

Meanwhile,  by  means  of  -the  fall  of  David,  however  it 
may  have  caused  some  to  blaspheme,  God  may  have  also 
provided  in  his  mercy,  that  many  since  David  should  stand 
upright ;  the  frailty  of  one  may  have  prevented  the  mis- 
carriage of  thousands  ;  saints,  with  his  example  before  their 
eyes,  may  have  learned  to  walk  humbly,  and  so  to  walk 
surely,  when  they  might  otherwise  have  presumed  and  per- 
ished ;  and  sinners,  even  the  men  of  the  darkest  and  most 
deadly  sins,  may  have  been  saved  from  utter  desperation 
and  self-abandonment,  by  remembering  David  and  all  his 
trouble  ;  and  that,  deep  as  he  was  in  guilt,  he  was  not  so 
deep  but  that  his  bitter  cries  for  mercy,  under  the  remorse 
and  anguish  of  his  spirit,  could  even  yet  pierce  the  ear  of 
an  offended  God,  and  move  him  to  put  away  his  sin. 

'  2  Sam.  xii.  13. 


156  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 


XI. 

MY  subject  has  compelled  me  to  anticipate  some  of  the 
events  of  David's  history  according  to  the  order  of  time. 
I  must  now,  therefore,  revert  to  certain  incidents  in  it, 
which  it  would  before  have  interrupted  my  argument  to 
notice,  but  which  are  too  important  as  evidences  of  its  cred- 
ibility, to  be  altogether  overlooked. 

The  conspiracy  of  Absalom  being  now  organized,  it  only 
remained  to  try  the  issue  by  force  of  arms  ;  and  here  an- 
other coincidence  presents  itself. 

In  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  the  second  Book  of  Sam- 
uel, we  read  that  "  David  arose,  and  all  the  people  that 
were  with  him,  and  they  passed  over  Jordan"  (v.  22  ;)  and 
in  the  same  chapter,  that  "  Absalom  passed  over  Jordan,  he 
and  all  the  men  of  Israel  with  him"  (v.  24  ;)  and  that 
"  they  pitched  in  the  land  of  Gilead"  (v.  26).  Now  in  the 
next  chapter,  where  an  account  is  given  of  a  review  of 
David's  troops,  and  of  their  going  forth  to  the  fight,  it  is 
said,  "  So  the  people  went  out  into  the  field  against  Israel, 
and  the  battle  was  in  the  wood  of  Ephraim"1  But  is 
not  the  sacred  historian,  in  this  instance,  off  his  guard,  and 
having  already  placed  his  combatants  on  one  side  of  the 
river,  does  he  not  now  place  his  combat  on  the  other  ?  Is 
he  not  mistaken  in  his  geography,  and  does  he  not  hereby 
betray  himself  and  the  credit  of  his  narrative  ?  Certain 
it  is,  that  Absalom  had  passed  over  Jordan  eastward,  and 
so  had  David,  with  their  respective  followers,  pitching  in 
Gilead  ;  and  no  less  certain  it  is,  that  the  tribe  of  Ephraim 
lay  altogether  west  of  Jordan,  and  had  not  a  foot  of  ground 
beyond  it :  how  then  was  the  battle  in  the  wood  of  Eph- 

i  2  Sam.  xvih.  6. 


FART    I*  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  157 

•  aim  *  By  any  fabulous  writer  this  seeming  difficulty 
would  have  been  avoided,  or  care  would  have  been  taken 
that,  at  least,  it  should  be  explained.  But  the  Book  of 
Samuel,  written  by  one  familiar  with  the  events  he  de- 
scribes, and  with  the  scenes  in  which  they  occurred  ;  writ- 
ten, moreover,  in  the  simplicity  of  his  heart,  probably  with- 
out any  notion  that  his  veracity  could  be  called  in  ques- 
tion, or  that  he  should  ever  be  the  subject  of  suspicious 
scrutiny,  contents  itself  with  stating  the  naked  facts,  and 
then  leaves  it  to  the  critics  to  reconcile  them  as  they  can. 
Turn  we  then  to  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Judges. 
There  we  are  told  of  an  attack  made  by  the  Ephraimites 
upon  Jephthah,  in  the  land  of  Gilead,  on  pretence  of  a 
wrong  done  them  when  they  were  not  invited  by  the  latter 
to  take  part  in  his  successful  invasion  of  Ammon.  It  was 
a  memorable  struggle.  Jephthah,  indeed,  endeavored  to 
soothe  the  angry  assailants  by  words  of  peace,  but  when 
he  spake  of  peace,  they  only  made  themselves  ready  for 
battle.  Accordingly.  "  he  gathered  together  all  the  men 
of  Gilead,  and  fought  with  Ephraim.''  Ephraim  was  dis- 
comfited with  signal  slaughter  ;  those  who  fell  in  the  ac- 
tion, and  those  who  were  afterwards  put  to  death  upon 
the  test  of  the  word  Shibboleth,  amounting  to  forty-two 
thousand  men ;  almost  an  extinction  of  all  the  fighting 
men  of  Ephraim.  Now  an  event  so  singular,  and  so  san- 
guinary, was  not  likely  to  pass  away  without  a  memorial ; 
and  what  memorial  so  natural  for  the  grave  of  a  tribe,  as 
its  own  name  forever  assigned  to  the  spot  where  it  fell, 
the  Acaldema  of  their  race  ? 

Thus,  then,  may  we  account  most  naturally  for  a  "  wood 
of  Ephraim"  in  the  land  of  Gilead  ;  a  point  which  would 
have  perplexed  us  not  a  little,  had  the  Book  of  Judges 
never  come  down  to  us;  or,  coming  down  to  us,  had  no 
mention  been  made  in  it  of  Jephthah's  victory ;  and  though 

14 


J5S  THE   VERACITY   OP    THE  PAPT   II. 

we  certainly  cannot  prove  that  the  battle  of  I/avid  and 
Absalom  was  fought  on  precisely  the  same  field  as  Jiis  of 
Jephthah  and  the  Ephraimites  some  hundred  and  twenty 
years  before,  yet  it  is  highly  probable  that  this  was  the 
case,  for  both  the  battles  were  assuredly  in  Gilead,  and 
both  apparently  in  that  part  of  Gilead  which  bordered  upon 
one  of  the  fords  of  Jordan. 

Thus  does  a  seeming  error  turn  out,  on  examination,  to 
be  an  actual  pledge  of  the  good  faith  of  the  historian ;  and 
the  unconcern  with  which  he  tells  his  own  tale,  in  his  own 
way,  never  pausing  to  correct,  to  balance,  or  adjust,  to  sup- 
ply a  defect,  or  to  meet  an  objection,  is  the  conduct  of  a 
witness  to  whom  it  never  occurred  that  he  had  anything 
to  conceal,  or  anything  to  fear ;  or,  if  it  did  occur,  to  whom 
it  was  well  known  that  truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail. 


XII. 

DAVID  having  won  the  battle,  and  recovered  his  throne, 
prepares  to  repass  the  Jordan,  and  return  once  more  to  his 
capital.  His  friends  again  congregate  around  him,  for  the 
prosperous  have  many  friends.  Amongst  them,  however, 
were  some  who  had  been  true  to  him  in  the  day  of  his 
adversity ;  and  the  aged  Barzillai,  a  Gileadite,  who  had 
provided  the  king  with  sustenance  whilst  he  lay  at  Maha- 
naim,  and  when  his  affairs  were  critical,  presents  himself 
before  him.  He  had  won  David's  heart.  The  king  now 
entreats  him  to  accompany  him  to  his  court,  "  Come  thou 
over  with  me,  and  I  will  feed  thee  with  me  in  Jerusalem." 
But  the  unambitious  Barzillai  pleads  fourscore  years  as  a 
bar  against  beginning  the  life  of  a  courtier,  and  chooses 
rather  to  die  in  his  own  city,  and  be  buried  by  the  grave 
of  his  father  and  of  his  mother.  His  son,  however,  had 


PAET  II.  HISTORICAL   SCRIPTURES.  159 

life  before  him :  "  Behold  thy  servant  Chimham,  let  him 
go  over  with  my  lord  and  king:  and  do  to  him  what  shall 
seem  good  unto  thee."  And  the  king  answered,  Chimham 
shall  go  over  with  me,  and  I  will  do  to  him  that  which 
shall  seem  good  unto  thee."1  So  he  went  with  the  king. 
Thus  begins,  and  thus  ends  the  history  of  Chimbam  ;  he 
passes  away  from  the  scene,  and  what  David  did  for  him, 
or  whether  he  did  anything  for  him,  beyond  providing  him 
a  place  at  his  table,  and  recommending  him,  in  common 
with  many  others,  to  Solomon  before  he  died,  does  not 
appear.  Singular,  however,  it  is,  and  if  ever  there  was  a 
coincidence  which  carried  with  it  the  stamp  of  truth,  it  is 
this,  that  in  the  forty-first  chapter  of  Jeremiah,  an  histori- 
cal chapter,  in  which  an  account  is  given  of  the  murder 
of  Gedaliah,  the  officer  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  had  left  in 
charge  of  Judea,  as  its  governor,  when  he  carried  away 
the  more  wealthy  of  its  inhabitants  captive  to  Babylon,  we 
read  that  the  Jews,  fearing  for  the  consequences  of  this 
bloody  act.  and  apprehending  the  vengeance  of  the  Chal- 
deans, prepared  for  a  flight  into  Egypt,  so  "  they  departed," 
the  narrative  continues,  "  and  dwelt  in  the  habitation  of 
Chimham)  which  is  by  Bethlehem,  to  go  to  enter  into 
Egypt"  (v.  17).  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  anything  more 
incidental  than  the  mention  of  this  estate  near  Bethlehem, 
which  was  the  habitation  of  Chimham — yet  how  well  does 
it  tally  with  the  spirit  of  David's  speech  to  Barzillai,  somo 
four  hundred  years  before  !  for  what  can  be  more  probable 
than  that  David,  whose  birth-place  was  this  very  Beth- 
lehem, and  whose  patrimony  in  consequence  lay  there, 
having  undertaken  to  provide  for  Chimham,  should  have 
bestowed  it  in  whole,  or  in  part,  as  the  most  flattering  re- 
ward he  could  confer,  a  personal,  as  well  as  a  royal,  mark 

1  '2  Sam.  xix.  37. 


160  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    II. 

of  favor,  on  the  son  of  the  man  who  had  saved  his  life,  and 
the  lives  of  his  followers  in  the  hour  of  their  distress;  and 
that,  to  that  very  day,  when  Jeremiah  wrote,  it  should  have 
remained  in  the  possession  of  the  family  of  Chimham.  and 
nave  been  a  land  called  after  his  own  name  ? 


XIII. 

I  PROCEED  with  the  history  of  David,  in  which  we  can 
scarcely  advance  a  step  without  having  our  attention 
drawn  to  some  new,  though  perhaps  subtle,  incident,  which 
marks  at  once  the  reality  of  the  facts,  and  the  fidelity  of 
the  record.  No  doubt  the  surface  of  the  narrative  is  per- 
fectly satisfactory  :  but  beneath  the  surface,  there  is  a  cer- 
tain substratum  now  appearing,  and  presently  losing  itself 
again,  which  is  the  proper  field  of  my  inquiry.  Here  I  find  the 
true  material  of  which  I  am  in  search ;  coincidences  shy  and 
unobtrusive,  not  courting  notice — as  far  from  it  as  possible — but 
having  chanced  to  attract  it,  sustaining  not  only  notice,  but 
scrutiny;  such  matters  as  might  be  over-looked  on  a  cursory 
perusal  of  the  text  a  hundred  times,  and  which  indeed  would 
stand  very  little  chance  of  any  other  fate  than  neglect,  unless  the 
mind  of  the  reader  had  been  previously  put  upon  challenging 
them  as  they  pass.  Therefore  it  is  that  I  feel  often  incapable  of 
doing  justice  to  my  subject  with  my  readers,  however  familiar 
they  may  be  with  Holy  Writ.  The  full  force  of  the  argument 
can  only  be  felt  by  him  who  pursues  it  for  himself,  when  he  is  in 
his  chamber  and  is  still ;  his  assent  taken  captive  before  he  is 
aware  of  it;  his  doubts,  if  any  he  had,  melting  away  under 
the  continual  dropping  of  minute  particles  of  evidence  upon 
his  mind,  as  it  proceeds  in  its  investigation.  It  is  difficult, 
it  is  scarcely  possible,  to  impart  this  sympathy  to  the  reader. 


URT   II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  161 

And  even  when  I  can  grasp  an  incident  sufficiently  substantial 
to  detach  and  present  to  his  consideration,  I  still  am  conscious 
that  it  is  not  launched  to  advantage ;  that  a  thousand  little 
preparations  are  lacking  in  order  that  it  may  leave  the  slips 
(if  I  may  venture  upon  the  expression),  with  a  motion  that 
shall  make  it  win  its  way;  that  the  plunge  with  which  I  am 
compelled  to  let  it  fall,  provokes  a  resistance  to  which  it  does  not 
deserve  to  be  exposed.  I  proceed,  however,  with  the  history  of 
David,  and  to  a  passage  in  it  which  has  partly  suggested  these 
remarks.  When  Saul  in  his  fury  had  slain,  by  the  hand  of  Doeg, 
Ahimelech,  the  high-priest,  and  all  the  priests  of  the  Lord,  "  one 
of  the  sons  of  Ahimelech,"  we  read,  "  named  Abiathar,  escaped 
and  fled  after  David."1  David  received  him  kindly,  saying  unto 
him,  "  Abide  thou  with  me,  fear  not ;  for  he  that  seeketh  my  life, 
seeketh  thy  life ;  but  with  me  thou  shalt  be  in  safeguard."  Abia- 
thar had  brought  with  him  the  ephod,  the  high-priest's  mysterious 
scarf;  and  his  father  being  dead,  he  appears  to  have  been  made 
high-priest  in  his  stead,  so  far  as  David  had  it  then  in  his  power 
to  give  him  that  office,  and  to  have  attended  upon  him  and  his 
followers.2  These  particulars  we  gather  from  several  passages  of 
the  first  Book  of  Samuel. 

We  hear  now  nothing  more  of  Abiathar  (except  that  he  was 
confirmed  in  his  office,  together  with  a  colleague,  when  David 
was  established  in  his  kingdom),  for  nearly  thirty  years.  Then  he 
re-appears,  having  to  play  not  an  inconspicuous  part  in  David's 
councils,  on  occasion  of  the  rebellion  of  Absalom.  Now  here  we 
find,  that  though  he  is  still  in  his  office  of  priest,  Zadok  (the  col- 
league to  whom  I  alluded)  appears  to  have  obtained  the  first  place 
in  the  confidence  and  consideration  of  David.  When  David  sends. 

1  1  Sam.  xxii.  20.  a  1  Sam.  xxx.  7. 

14* 


162  THE  VERACITY  OF  THE  PART  II. 

the  ark  back,  which  he  probably  thought  it  irreverent  to  make 
the  partner  of  his  flight,  and  delivers  his  commands  to  this  effect, 
it  may  be  remarked  that  he  does  not  address  himself  to  Abiathar, 
though  Abiathar  was  there,  but  to  Zadok — Zadok  takes  the 
lead  in  everything.  The  king  says  to  Zadok,  "  Carry  back  the 
Ark  of  God  into  the  city :'" — and  again,  "  The  king  said  unto 
Zadok  the  priest,  Art  not  thou  a  seer?  return  into  the  city  in 
peace ;"  and  when  Zadok  and  Abiathar  are  mentioned  together 
at  this  period,  Zadok  is  placed  foremost.  No  doubt  Abiathar 
was  honored  by  David;  there  is  evidence  enough  of  this  (v.  35); 
but  many  trifles  lead  us  to  conclude  that  herein  he  attained  not 
unto  his  companion. 

Now,  unquestionably,  it  cannot  be  asserted  with  confidence, 
where  there  is  no  positive  document  to  substantiate  the  assertion, 
that  Abiathar  felt  his  associate  in  the  priesthood  to  be  his  rival 
in  the  state,  his  more  than  successful  rival ;  yet  that  such  a  feel- 
ing should  find  a  place  in  the  breast  of  Abiathar  seems  most 
natural,  seems  almost  inevitable,  when  we  take  into  account  that 
these  two  priests  were  the  representatives  of  two  rival  houses, 
over  one  of  which,  a  prophecy  affecting  its  honor,  and  well  nigh 
its  existence,  was  hanging  unfulfilled.  For  Zadoc,  be  it  observed, 
was  descended  from  Eleazar,  the  eldest  of  the  sons  of  Aaron ; 
Abiathar  from  Ithamar,  the  youngest,  and  so  from  the  family  of 
Eli,  a  family  of  which  it  had  been  foretold,  some  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before,  that  the  priesthood  should  pass  from  it.  Could 
Abiathar  read  the  signs  of  his  time  without  alarm  ?  or  fail  to 
suspect  (what  did  prove  the  fact)  that  the  curse  which  had  tarried 
so  long,  was  now  again  in  motion,  and  that  the  ancient  office  of 
his  fathers  was  in  jeopardy ;  a  curse,  too,  comprising  circum- 

1  2  Sam.  xv.  25. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  163 

stances  of  signal  humiliation,  calculated  beyond  measure  to 
exasperate  the  sufferer :  even  that  the  house  of  Eli,  which 
God  had  once  said  should  walk  before  him  forever,  should 
be  far  from  him  ;  even  that  he  would  raise  up  (that  is  from 
another  house)  a  faithful  priest  that  should  do  according  to 
that  which  was  in  his  heart  and  his  mind ;  and  that  the 
house  of  that  man  should  be  sure  built ;  and  that  they  of 
the  house  of  Eli  which  were  left,  "  should  come  and  crouch 
to  him  for  a  piece  of  silver  and  a  morsel  of  bread,  and  say, 
Put  me,  I  pray  thee,  into  one  of  the  priest's  offices,  that  I 
may  eat  a  piece  of  bread  ?'"  Abiathar  musfchave  had  a 
tamer  spirit  than  he  gave  subsequent  proof  of,  if  he  could 
have  witnessed  the  elevation  of  one  in  whom  this  bitter 
threat  seemed  advancing  to  its  accomplishment,  and  in 
whom  it  was  in  fact  accomplished,  with  complacency  ;  if 
he  could  see  him  seated  by  his  side  in  the  dignity  of  the 
high-priesthood,  and  favored  at  his  expense  by  the  more 
frequent  smiles  of  his  sovereign,  without  a  wounded  spirit. 
Now  liaving  possessed  ourselves  of  this  secret  key, 
namely,  jealousy  of  his  rival,  a  key  not  delivered  into 
our  hands  directly  by  the  historian,  but  accidentally  found 
by  ourselves,  (and  here  is  its  value,)  let  us  apply  it  to  the 
incidents  of  Abiathar's  subsequent  conduct,  and  observe 
whether  they  will  not  answer  to  it.  We  have  seen  Abia- 
thar flying  from  the  vengeance  of  Saul  to  David ;  pro- 
tected by  David  in  the  wilderness  :  made  by  David  his 
priest,  virtually  before  Saul's  death,2  and  formally  when 
he  succeeded  to  Saul's  throne.3  We  have  seen,  too,  Za- 
dok  united  with  him  in  his  office,  and  David  giving  signs 
of  preferring  Zadok  before  him;  a  preference  the  more 
marked,  and  the  more  galling,  because  Abiathar  was  un- 

i  1  Saa.  ii.  3&          «1  Sam.  xiiii.  2-6.  3  2  Sam.  vfii.  17. 


164  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

doubtedly  the  high-priest  (as  the  sequel  will  p  ove)  and 
Zadok  his  vicar  only,  or  sagan.1 

This  being  the  state  of  things,  let  us  now  observe  the 
issue.  When  David  was  forced  to  withdraw  for  a  season 
from  Jerusalem,  by  the  conspiracy  of  Absalom,  Zadok 
and  Abiathar  were  left  behind  in  the  capital,  charged 
with  the  office  of  forwarding  to  the  king  any  intelligence 
which  his  friends  within  the  walls  might  communicate  to 
them,  that  it  was  for  his  advantage  to  know.  Ahimaaz, 
the  son  of  Zadok,  and  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Abiathar,  (the 
sons  are  named  after  the  same  order  as  their  fathers,)  are 
the  secret  messengers  by  whom  it  is  to  be  conveyed  ;  and 
on  one  occasion,  the  only  one  in  which  their  services  are 
recorded,  we  find  them  acting  together.2  But  I  observe 
that  after  the  battle  in  which  Absalom  was  slain,  a  battle 
which  seems  to  have  served  as  a  test  of  the  real  loyalty  of 
many  of  David's  nominal  friends,  Ahimaaz,  the  son  of 
Zadok,  and  not  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Abiathar,  is  at  hand 
to  carry  the  tidings  of  the  victory  to  David,  who  had  tar- 
ried behind  at  Mahanaim  ;  and  this  office  he  solicits  from 
Joab,  who  had  intended  it  for  another,  with  the  utmost 
importunity,  and  the  most  lively  zeal  for  the  king's  cause.3 
This,  it  will  be  said,  proves  but  little ;  more  especially  as 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  David  was,  at  least,  upon 
terms  with  Abiathar  at  a  later  period  than  this.4  Still 
there  may  be  thought  something  suspicious  in  the  absence 
of  the  one  messenger,  at  a  moment  so  critical,  as  compared 
with  the  alacrity  of  the  other ;  their  office  having  been 
hitherto  a  joint  one ;  it  is  not  enough  to  prove  that  the 
loyalty  of  Abiathar  and  his  house  was  waxing  cool, 
though  it  accords  with  such  a  supposition.  Let  us,  how- 
ever, proceed.  Within  a  few  years  of  this  time,  probably 

i  See  Lightfoot's  Works,  Vol.  i.  911,  912,  fol.  2  2  Sam.  rvifa.  21. 

»  Ib.  xviii.  19—22.  *  Ib.  xix.  11. 


PART   II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  165 

about  eight,  another  rebellion  against  David  is  set  on  foot 
by  another  of  his  sons.  Adonijah  is  now  the  offender.  He, 
too,  prepares  him  chariots  and  horsemen,  after  the  exam- 
ple of  his  brother.  Moreover,  he  feels  his  way  before  he 
openly  appears  in  arms.  And  to  whom  does  he  make  his 
first  overtures?  "  He  confers,"  we  read,  "  with  Abiathar 
the  priest,"1  having  good  reason,  no  doubt,  for  knowing 
that  such  an  application  might  be  made  in  that  quarter 
with  safety,  if  not  with  success.  The  event  proved  that 
he  had  not  mistaken  his  man.  "  Abiathar,"  we  learn, 
"following  Adonijah,  helped  him :"  not  so  Zadok  ;  he, 
we  are  told,  "  was  not  with  Adonijah  ;"  on  the  contrary, 
he  was  one  of  the  first  persons  for  whom  David  sent,  that 
he  might  communicate  with  him  in  this  emergency ;  his 
stanch  and  steadfast  friend ;  and  him  he  commissioned, 
together  with  Nathan  the  prophet,  to  set  the  crown  upon 
the  head  of  Solomon,  and  thereby  to  confound  the  coun- 
cils of  the  rebels.2  Nor  should  we  leave  unnoticed,  for 
they  are  facts  which  coincide  with  the  view  I  have  taken 
of  Abiathar's  loyalty,  and  the  cause  of  it,  that  one  of  the 
first  acts  of  Solomon's  reign  was  to  banish  the  traitor  "  to 
his  own  fields,"  and  to  thrust  him  out  of  the  priesthood, 
"  that  he  might  fulfil"  (so  it  is  expressly  said  in  the  twenty- 
seventh  verse  of  the  second  chapter  of  the  first  Book  of 
Kings)  "  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake  concerning 
the  house  of  Eli  in  Shiloh," — fulfil  it,  not  by  that  act  only, 
but  by  the  other  also,  which  followed  and  crowned  the 
prophecy  ;  for  "  Zadok  the  priest,"  it  is  added,  "  did  Sol- 
omon put  in  the  room  of  Abiathar  ;"3  or,  as  the  Septua- 
gint  translates  it  still  more  to  our  purpose,  Zadok  the  priest 
did  the  king  make  first  priest  («te  leqea  nqGnotyn.  the  room 
of  Abiathar ;  so  that  Abiathar,  as  I  said,  had  been  hith- 

i  1  Kings  L  7.  a  ib.  i.  32,  34.  3  H>.  ii.  35. 


166 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II 


erto  Zadok's  superior ;  his  superior  in  office,  and  his  infe- 
rior in  honor  ;  a  position  of  all  others  calculated  to  excite 
in  him  the  heart-burnings  we  have  discovered,  long  smoth- 
ered, but  at  last  bursting  forth — beginning  in  lukewarm- 
ness,  and  ending  in  rebellion. 

This  is  all  extremely  natural ;  nothing  can  drop  into  its 
place  better  than  the  several  parts  of  this  history ;  not  at 
all  a  prominent  history,  but  rather  a  subordinate  one.  Yet 
manifest  as  the  relation  which  they  bear  to  one  another  is, 
when  they  are  once  brought  together,  they  are  themselves 
dispersed  through  the  Books  of  Samuel,  of  Kings,  and  of 
Chronicles,  without  the  smallest  arrangement  or  reference 
one  to  another ;  their  succession  not  continuous ;  suspend- 
ed by  many  and  long  intervals ;  intervals  occupied  by 
matters  altogether  foreign  from  this  subject ;  and  after  all, 
the  integral  portions  of  the  narrative  themselves  defective : 
there  are  gaps  even  here,  which  I  think,  indeed,  may  be 
filled  up,  as  I  have  shown,  with  very  little  chance  of  error ; 
but  still,  that  there  should  be  any  necessity  even  for  this, 
argues  the  absence  of  all  design,  collusion,  and  contrivance 
in  the  historians. 


XIV. 

W  E  have  now  followed  David  through  the  events  of  his 
checkered  life ;  it  remains  to  contemplate  him  yet  once 
more  upon  his  death-bed,  giving  in  charge  the  execution 
of  his  last  wishes  to  Solomon  his  son.  Probably  in  con- 
sideration of  his  youth,  his  inexperience,  and  the  difficul- 
ties of  his  position,  David  thought  it  well  to  put  him  in 
possession  of  the  characters  of  some  of  those  with  whom 
he  would  have  to  deal ;  of  those  whom  he  had  found  faith- 
ful or  faithless  to  himself;  that,  on  the  one  hand,  his  own 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  167 

promises  of  favor  might  not  be  forfeited,  nor,  on  the  other, 
the  confidence  of  the  young  monarch  be  misplaced.  Now 
it  is  remarkable,  that  in  this  review  of  his  friends  and  foes, 
David  altogether  overlooks  Mephibosheth,  the  son  of  Jona- 
than. Joab  he  remembers,  and  all  that  he  had  done ; 
Shimei  he  speaks  of  at  some  length,  and  puts  Solomon 
upon  his  guard  against  him.  The  sons  of  Barzillai,  and 
the  service  they  had  rendered  him  in  the  day  of  his  ad- 
versity, are  all  recommended  to  his  friendly  consideration ; 
but  of  Mephibosheth,  who  had  played  a  part,  such  as  it 
was,  in  the  scenes  of  those  eventful  times,  which  had 
called  forth,  for  good  or  evil,  a  Chimham,  a  Barzillai,  a 
Shimei,  and  a  Joab,  he  does  not  say  a  syllable.  Yet  he 
was  under  peculiar  obligations  to  him.  He  had  loved  his 
father  Jonathan.  He  had  promised  to  show  kindnes  to  his 
house  forever.  He  had  confirmed  his  promise  by  an  oath. 
That  oath  he  had  repeated.1  On  his  accession  to  the 
throne  he  had  evinced  no  disposition  to  shrink  from  it ;  on 
the  contrary,  he  had  studiously  inquired  after  the  family 
of  Jonathan,  and  having  found  Mephibosheth,  he  gave 
him  a  place  at  his  own  table  continually,  for  his  father's 
sake,  and  secured  to  him  all  the  lands  of  Saul."2 

Let  us,  however,  carefully  examine  the  details  of  the 
history,  and  I  think  we  shall  be  able  to  account  satisfac- 
torily enough  for  David's  apparent  neglect  of  the  son  of 
his  friend ;  for  I  think  we  shall  find  violent  cause  to  sus- 
pect that  Mephibosheth  had  forfeited  all  claims  to  his 
kindness. 

When  David  was  driven  from  Jerusalem  by  the  rebellion 
of  Absalom,  no  Mephibosheth  appeared  to  share  with  him 
his  misfortunes,  or  to  support  him  by  his  name,  a  name  at 
that  moment  of  peculiar  value  to  David,  for  Mephibosheth 

i  1  San.   xx.  17.  *  2  Sam.  x.  6.  7. 


168  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

was  the  representative  of  the  house  of  Saul.  David  nat- 
urally intimates  some  surprise  at  his  absence ;  and  when 
his  servant  Ziba  appears,  bringing  with  him  a  small  pres- 
ent of  bread  and  fruits,  (the  line  of  the  king's  flight  having 
apparently  carried  him  near  the  lands  of  Mephibosheth,)  a 
present,  however,  offered  on  his  own  part,  and  not  on  the 
part  of  his  master,  David  puts  to  him  several  questions, 
expressive  of  his  suspicions  of  Mephibosheth's  loyalty : 
"  What  meanest  thou  by  these  ?  Where  is  thy  master's 
son?"1  Ziba  replies  in  substance,  than  he  had  tarried  at 
Jerusalem,  waiting  the  event  of  the  rebellion,  and  hoping 
that  it  might  lead  to  the  re-establishment  of  Saul's  family 
on  the  throne.  This  might  be  true,  or  it  might  be  false. 
The  commentators  appear  to  take  for  granted  that  it  was 
a  mere  slander  of  Ziba,  invented  for  the  purpose  of  sup- 
planting Mephibosheth  in  his  possessions.  I  do  not  think 
this  so  certain.  Ziba,  I  suspect,  had  some  reason  in  what 
he  said,  though  probably  the  coloring  of  the  picture  was 
his  own.  Certain  it  is,  or  all  but  certain,  that  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  which  was  the  tribe  of  Mephibosheth,  did,  in 
general,  take  part  with  the  rebels.  When  David  returned 
victorious,  and  Shimei  hastened  to  make  his  peace  with 
him,  a  thousand  men  of  Benjamin  accompanied  him ;  and 
it  was  his  boast  that  he  came  the  first  of  "  all  the  house 
of  Joseph"  to  meet  the  king,2  as  though  others  of  his  tribe 
(for  they  of  Benjamin  were  reckoned  of  the  house  of 
Joseph,  the  same  mother  having  given  birth  to  both)  were 
yet  behind.  Went  not  then  the  heart  of  Mephibosheth  in 
the  day  of  battle  with  his  brethren,  rather  than  with  his 
benefactor  ?  David  himself  evidently  believed  the  report 
of  Ziba.  and  forthwith  gave  him  his  master's  inheritance.3 
The  battle  is  now  fought,  on  which  the  fate  of  the  throne 

1  2  Sam.  xvi.  2,  3.  «  Ib.  xix.  17—20.  3  Ib.  xvi.  4. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  169 

hung  m  suspense,  and  David  is  the  conqueror.  And  now, 
many  who  had  forsaken,  or  insulted  him  in  his  distress, 
hasten  to  congratulate  him  on  his  triumph,  and  to  profess 
their  joy  at  his  return ;  Mephibosheth  amongst  the  rest 
There  is  something  touching  in  David's  first  greeting  of 
him  ;  "  Wherefore  wentest  thou  not  with  me,  Mephibo- 
sheth?" A  question  not  of  curiosity,  but  of  reproach. 
His  ass  was  saddled,  forsooth,  that  he  might  go,  but  Ziba, 
it  seems,  had  taken  it  for  himself,  and  gone  unto  the  king, 
and  slandered  him  unto  the  king  ;  and  meanwhile,  "  thy 
servant  was  lame."  The  tale  appears  to  be  as  lame  as 
the  tale-bearer.  I  think  it  clear  that  Mephibosheth  did 
not  succeed  in  removing  the  suspicion  of  his  disloyalty 
from  David's  mind,  notwithstanding  the  ostentatious  dis- 
play of  his  clothes  unwashed  and  beard  untrimmed ; 
weeds  which  the  loss  of  his  estate  might  very  well  have 
taught  him  to  put  on  :  for  otherwise,  would  not  David,  in 
common  justice  both  to  Mephibosheth  and  to  Ziba,  have 
punished  the  treachery  of  the  latter — the  lie  by  which  he 
had  imposed  upon  the  king  to  his  own  profit,  and  to  his 
master's  infinite  dishonor  and  damage,  by  revoking  alto- 
gether the  grant  of  the  lands  which  he  had  made  him, 
under  an  impression  which  proved  to  be  a  mistake,  and 
restoring  them  to  their  rightful  owner,  who  had  been  in- 
juriously supposed  to  have  forfeited  them  by  treason  to  the 
crown  ?  He  does,  however,  no  such  thing.  To  Mephibo- 
sheth, indeed,  he  gives  back  half,  but  that  is  all ;  and  he 
leaves  the  other  half  still  in  the  possession  of  Ziba  ;  doing 
even  thus  much,  in  all  probability,  not  as  an  act  of  justice, 
but  out  of  tenderness  to  a  son,  even  an  unworthy  son  of 
Jonathan,  whom  he  had  loved  as  his  own  soul.  And 
then,  as  if  impatient  of  the  wearisome  exculpations  of  an 
ungrateful  man,  whose  excuses  were  his  accusations,  he 
abruptly  puts  an  end  to  the  parley,  (the  conversation  hav- 

15 


170  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

ing  been  apparently  much  longer  than  is  recorded,)  with  a 
"  Why  speakest  thou  any  more  of  thy  matters  ?  I  have 
said,  Thou  and  Ziba  divide  the  land."1 

Henceforward,  whatever  act  of  grace  he  received  at 
David's  hands,  was  purely  gratuitous.  His  unfaithfulness 
had  released  the  king  from  his  bond ;  and  that  he  lived, 
was  perhaps  rather  of  sufferance,  than  of  right  j  a  consid- 
eration which  serves  to  explain  David's  conduct  towards 
him,  as  it  is  reported  on  an  occasion  subsequent  to  the  re- 
bellion. For  when  propitiation  was  to  be  made  by  seven 
of  Saul's  sons,  for  the  sin  of  Saul  in  the  slaughter  of  the 
Gibeonites.  "  the  king,"  we  read,  "  spared  Mephibosheth, 
the  son  of  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Saul,  because  of  the  Lortfs 
oath  that  was  between  them,  between  David,  and  Jona- 
than the  son  of  Saul  ;"2  as  though  he  owed  it  to  the  oath 
only,  and  to  the  memory  of  his  father's  virtues,  that  he 
was  not  selected  by  David  as  one  of  the  victims  of  that 
bloody  sacrifice. 

Now,  under  these  circumstances,  is  it  a  subject  for  sur- 
prise, is  it  not  rather  a  most  natural  and  veracious  coinci- 
dence, that  David,  in  commending  on  his  death-bed  some 
of  his  stanch  and  trustworthy  friends  to  Solomon  his  son, 
should  have  omitted  all  mention  of  Mephibosheth,  dissatis- 
fied as  he  was,  and  ever  had  been,  with  his  explanations 
of  very  suspicious  conduct,  at  a  very  critical  hour  ?  con- 
sidering him,  with  every  appearance  of  reason,  a  waiter 
upon  Providence,  as  such  persons  have  been  since  called — 
a  prudent  man,  who  would  see  which  way  the  battle  went, 
before  he  made  up  his  mind  to  which  side  he  belonged  ? 
This  coincidence  is  important,  not  merely  as  carrying  with 
it  evidence  of  a  true  story  in  all  its  details,  which  is  my 
business  with  it ;  but  also  as  disembarrassing  the  incident 

i  2  Sam.  xix.  29.  2  Ib.  xxi.  7. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  171 

itself  of  several  serious  difficulties  which  present  themselves, 
on  the  ordinary  supposition  of  Ziba's  treachery,  and  Me- 
phibosheth's  truth  ;  difficulties  which  I  cannot  better  ex- 
plain, than  by  referring  my  hearers  to  the  beautiful  "  Con- 
templations" of  Bishop  Hall,  whose  view  of  these  two  char 
acters  is  the  common  one,  and  who  consequently  finds  him- 
self, in  this  instance,  (it  will  be  perceived,)  encumbered 
with  his  subject,  and  driven  to  the  necessity  of  impugning 
the  justice  of  David.  It  is  further  valuable,  as  exonerating 
the  king  of  two  other  charges  which  have  been  brought 
against  him,  yet  more  serious  than  the  last,  even  of  indiffer- 
ence to  the  memory  of  his  dearest  friend,  and  disregard  to 
the  obligations  of  his  solemn  oath.  But  these  are  not  the 
only  instances  in  which  the  character  of  David,  and  indeed 
of  the  history  itself,  which  treats  of  him,  has  suffered  from 
a  neglect  to  make  allowance  for  omissions  in  a  very  brief 
and  desultory  memoir,  or  from  a  want  of  more  exact  at- 
tention to  the  under-current  of  the  narrative,  which  would, 
in  itself,  very  often  supply  those  omissions. 


xv. 

The  history  of  the  people  of  God  has  thus  far  been 
brought  down  to  the  reign  of  Solomon,  and  its  general 
truth  and  accuracy  (I  think  I  may  say)  established  by  the 
application  of  a  test  which  could  scarcely  fail  us.  The 
great  schism  of  the  tribes  is  now  about  to  divide  our  atten- 
tion between  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  ;  but  be- 
fore I  proceed  to  offer  some  observations  upon  the  effects  of 
it,  both  religious  and  political,  on  either  kingdom,  observa- 
tions which  will  involve  many  more  of  those  undesigned 
coincidences  which  are  the  subject  of  these  pages,  I  must 
say  a  word  upon  the  progress  of  events  towards  the  schism 


172  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART  II. 

itself;  for  herein  I  discover  combinations,  of  a  kind  which 
no  ingenuity  could  possibly  counterfeit,  and  to  an  extent 
which  verifies  a  large  portion  of  the  Jewish  annals.  "  By 
faith,  Jacob,  when  he  was  a  dying,  blessed  his  children." 
On  that  occasion,  Judah  and  Ephraim  were  made  to  stand 
conspicuous  amongst  the  future  founders  of  the  Israelitish 
nation.  "Judah,"  says  the  prophetic  old  man,  "  thou  art 
he  whom  thy  brethren  shall  praise ;  thy  hand  shall  be  on 
the  neck  of  thine  enemies  :  thy  father's  children  shall  bow 
down  before  thee.  Judah  is  a  lion's  whelp :  from  the  prey, 
my  son,  thou  art  gone  up.  He  stooped  down,  he  crouched 
as  a  lion,  and  as  an  old  lion  :  who  shall  rouse  him  up  ? 
The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver 
from  between  his  feet,  till  Shiloh  come  ;  and  unto  him  shall 
the  gathering  of  the  people  be."1  Ail  this,  and  more,  did 
Jacob  foretell  of  this  mighty  tribe.  Again,  crossing  his 
hands,  and  studiously  laying  the  right  upon  the  head  of 
Ephraim,  the  younger  of  Joseph's  children,  "  Manasseh 
also  shall  be  a  people,"  he  exclaimed,  u  and  he  also  shall 
be  great ;  but  truly  his  younger  brother  shall  be  greater 
than  he,  and  his  seed  shall  become  a  multitude  of  nations. 
And  so  he  blessed  them  that  day,  saying,  In  thee  shall 
Israel  bless,  saying,  God  make  thee  as  Ephraim  and  Ma- 
nasseh."2 Thus  did  these  two  tribes,  Judah  and  Ephraim, 
enter  the  land  of  promise  some  two  hundred  and  forty 
years  afterwards,  with  the  Patriarch's  blessing  on  their 
heads :  God  having  conveyed  it  to  them  by  his  mouth,  and 
being  now  about  to  work  it  out  by  the  quiet  operations  of 
his  hands.  As  yet,  neither  of  them  was  much  more  pow- 
erful than  his  brethren,  the  latter  less  so ;  Judah  not  ex- 
ceeding one  other  of  the  tribes,  at  least,  by  more  than 
twelve  thousand  men,  and  Ephraim  actually  the  smallest 

i  Gen.  xlix.  8.  2  Ib.  xlix.  20. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  173 

of  them  all,  with  the  single  exception  of  Simeon.1  The 
lot  of  Ephraim,  however,  fell  upon  a  fair  ground,  and  upon 
this  lot,  the  disposing  of  which  was  of  the  Lord,  turned 
very  materially  the  fortunes  of  Ephraim ;  it  fell  nearly  in 
the  midst  of  the  tribes  ;  and  accordingly,  the  invasion  and 
occupation  of  Canaan  being  effected,  at  Shiloh  in  Ephraim, 
the  Tabernacle  was  set  up.  there  to  abide  three  hundred 
years  and  upwards,  during  all  the  time  of  the  Judges* 
Hither,  we  read,  Elkanah  repaired  year  by  year  for  wor- 
ship and  sacrifice ;  here  the  lamp  of  God  was  never  suffered 
to  go  out  "  in  the  Temple  of  the  Lord,"  (the  expression  is 
remarkable,)  "  where  the  Ark  of  God  was  ;1>3  here  Samuel 
ministered  as  a  child,  all  Israel,  from  Dan  even  to  Beer- 
sheba,  speedily  perceiving  that  he  was  established  to  be  a 
prophet,  because  all  Israel  was  accustomed  to  resort  annually 
to  Shiloh,  at  the  feasts.4  Shiloh,  therefore,  in  Ephraim, 
was  the  great  religious  capital,  as  it  were,  from  the  time 
of  Joshua  to  Saul,  the  spot  more  especially  consecrated  to 
the  honor  of  God,  the  resting  place  of  his  tabernacle,  of  his 
prophets,  and  of  his  priests  ;5  whilst  at  no  great  distance 
from  it  appears  to  have  stood  Shechemf  once  the  political 
capital  of  Ephraim,  till  civil  war  left  it  for  a  season  in 
ruins,  but  which,  even  then,  continued  to  be  the  gathering 
point  of  the  tribes  ;7  Shechem,  where  was  Jacob's  well,8  and 
where,  accordingly,  both  literally  and  figuratively,  was  the 
prophecy  of  that  patriarch  fulfilled,  "  Joseph  is  a  fruitful 
bough,  even  a  fruitful  bough  by  a  well,  whose  branches 
run  over  the  wall."9 

Thus  was  this  district  in  Ephraim,  comprising  Shiloh 

1  Numb.  xxvi.  2  Judges  xxi.  19.  31  Sam.  iii.  3. 

*  Ib.  ffi.  20,  21.  5  psalm  cxxxii.  6;  Ixxviii.  67.    1  Sam.  ii.  14, 
6  Judges  xxi.  19.    Josh.  xxiv.  25,  26. 

i  Josh.  xxiv.  1.    Judges  ix.  2.    1  Kings  xii.  1.         8  John  iv.  6, 

•  See  Lightfoot,  Vol.  i.  49,  fol. 

15* 


J74  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

and  Shechem,  probably  the  most  populous,  certainly  the 
most  important,  of  any  in  all  the  Holy  Land  during  the 
government  of  the  Judges ;  and,  constantly  recruited  by 
the  confluence  of  strangers,  Ephraim  seems  to  have  be- 
come (as  Jerusalem  became  afterwards)  what  Jacob  again 
foretold,  a  "  multitude  of  nations." 

There  are  other  and  more  minute  incidents  left  upon 
record,  all  tending  to  establish  the  same  fact.  For  I 
observe,  that  amongst  the  Judges,  many,  whether  them- 
selves of  Ephraim  or  not,  do  appear  to  have  repaired 
thither  as  to  the  proper  seat  of  government.  I  find  that 
Deborah  "  dwelt  under  the  palm  tree,  between  Ramah 
and  Bethel,  in  Mount  Ephraim"  and  that  there  the 
children  of  Israel  went  up  to  her  for  judgment.1  I  find 
that  Gideon,  who  was  of  Ophrah  in  Manasseh,  where  he 
appears  in  general  to  have  lived,  and  where  he  was  at  last 
buried,  had,  nevertheless,  a  family  at  Shechem^  it  being 
incidentally  said,  that  the  mother  of  his  son  Abimelech 
resided  there,  and  that  there  Abimelech  himself  was  born  ;2 
a  trifle  in  itself,  yet  enough,  I  think,  to  suggest,  that  at 
Shechem  in  Ephraim,  Gideon  did  occasionally  dwell ;  the 
discharge  of  his  judicial  functions,  like  those  of  Pilate  at 
Jerusalem,  probably  constraining  him  to  a  residence  which 
he  might  not  otherwise  have  chosen.  I  find  this  same 
Shechem  the  head-quarters  of  this  same  Abimelech,  and 
the  support  of  his  cause  when  he  usurped  the  government 
of  Israel.3  And  I  subsequently  find  Tola,  though  a  man 
of  Issachar,  dwelling  in  Shamir,  in  Mount  Ephraim^ 
(Shechem  having  been  recently  laid  waste,)  and  judging 
Israel  twenty  and  three  years.4 

Noi  is  this  all.  The  comparative  importance  of  Eph- 
raim amongst  the  tribes  during  the  time  of  the  Judges,  is 

i  Judges,  iv.  5.      a  Ib.  viii.  27—32 ;  ix.  1.      3  ib.  ix.  22.      4  ib.  x.  1 . 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  175 

further  detected  in  the  tone  of  authority,  not  to  say  me- 
nace, which  it  occasionally  assumes  towards  its  weaker 
brethren.  Gideon  leads  several  of  the  tribes  against  the 
Midianites,  but  Ephrairn  had  not  been  consulted.  "  Why 
hast  thou  served  us  thus,"  is  the  angry  remonstrance  of  the 
Ephraimites,  "  that  thou  calledst  us  not  when  thou  wentest 
to  fight  with  the  Midianites  ?  And  they  did  chide  with 
him  harshly."1  Gideon  stoops  before  the  storm ;  he  dis- 
putes not  the  vast  superiority  of  Ephraim,  his  gleaning 
being  more  than  another's  grapes.  Jephthah,  in  later  times, 
ventures  upon  a  similar  invasion  of  the  children  of  Am- 
mon,  and  discomfits  them  with  great  slaughter,  but  he, 
too,  without  Ephraim's  hel^  or  cognizance:  again  the 
pride  of  this  powerful  tribe  is  wounded,  and  "  they  gather 
themselves  together,  and  go  northward,  and  say  unto 
Jephthah,  Wherefore  passedest  thou  over  to  fight  against 
the  children  of  Ammon,  and  didst  not  call  us  to  go  with 
thee  ?  we  will  burn  thine  house  upon  thee  with  fire."2 — 
All  this,  the  unreasonable  conduct  of  a  party  conscious  that 
it  has  the  law  of  the  strongest  on  its  side,  and,  by  virtue 
of  that  law  claiming  to  itself  the  office  of  dictator  amongst 
the  neighboring  tribes.  Well  then  might  David  express 
himself  with  regard  to  the  support  he  expected  from  this 
tribe,  in  terms  of  more  than  common  emphasis,  when  at 
last  seated  on  the  throne,  his  title  acknowledged  through- 
out Israel,  he  reviews  the  resources  of  his  consolidated 
empire,  and  exclaims,  "  Ephraim  is  the  strength  of  my 
head"3  Accordingly,  all  the  ten  tribes  are  sometimes  ex- 
pressed under  tne  comprehensive  name  of  Ephraim4 — and 
the  gate  of  Jerusalem  which  looked  towards  Israel  appears 
to  have  been  called,  emphatically,  the  gate  of  Ephraim* — 

»  Judges  viU.  1.  *  Ib.  rii  1.  »  Pa.  Ix.  7. 

«  2  Chron.  xxv.  6  anc  7.  3  Kings  nv.  13. 


176  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

and  Ephraim  and  Judah  together  represent  the  whole  of 
fhe  people  of  Israel,  from  Dan  to  Beer-sheba.1 

In  tracing  the  seeds  of  the  future  dissolution  of  the  ten 
from  the  tv»o  tribes,  I  further  remark,  that  whilst  Samuel 
himself  remains  at  Ramah,  a  border  town  of  Benjamin  and 
Ephraim,  (for  Shiloh  and  Shechem  were  probably  now  in 
possession  of  the  Philistines,)  there  to  sit  in  judgment  on 
such  causes  as  Ephraim  and  the  northern  states  should 
bring  before  him,  he  sends  his  sons  to  be  judges  in  Beer- 
sheba,2  a  southern  town  belonging  to  Judah,3  as  though 
there  was  already  some  reluctance  between  these  rival 
tribes  to  resort  to  the  same  tribunal :  and  the  fierce  words 
that  passed  between  the  men  of  Israel  and  the  men  of  Ju- 
dah, on  the  subject  of  the  restoration  of  David  to  the  throne, 
the  former  claiming  ten  parts  in  him,  the  latter  nearness  of 
kin,4  still  indicate  that  the  breach  was  gradually  widening, 
and  that  however  sudden  was  the  final  disruption  of  the 
bond  of  union,  events  had  weakened  it  long  before.  Indeed, 
humanly  speaking,  nothing  could  in  all  probability  have 
preserved  it,  but  a  continuance  of  the  government  of  judges, 
under  God  ;  who,  taken  from  various  tribes,  and  according 
to  no  established  order,  might  have  secured  the  common- 
wealth from  that  jealousy  which  an  hereditary  possession 
f  power  by  any  one  tribe  was  sure  to  create,  and  did  cre- 
ate ;  and  which  burst  out  in  that  bitter  cry  of  Israel,  at  the 
critical  moment  of  the  separation,  "  What  portion  have  we 
in  David  ?  neither  have  we  inheritance  in  the  son  of  Jesse 
— to  your  tents,  O  Israel :  now  see  to  thine  own  house,  Da- 
vid."5 And  so,  by  the  natural  motions  of  the  human  heart, 
did  God  take  vengeance  of  the  people  whom  he  had  chosen, 

i  Isai.  vii.  9—17,  et  alibi ;  Ezek.  xxxvii.  19.  2  1  Sam.  viii.  2. 

»  Josh.  xv.  28.  4  2  Sam.  xix.  43.  «  1  Kings  xii.  16. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  177 

for  rejecting  him  for  their  sovereign,  and  a  king,  indeed,  he 
gave  them,  as  they  desired,  but  he  gave  him  in  his  wrath. 

Thus  have  we  detected,  by  the  apposition  of  many  dis- 
tinct particulars,  a  gradual  tendency  of  the  Ten  Tribes 
to  become  confederate  under  Ephraim  ;  an  event,  to  which 
the  local  position,  numerical  superiority,  and  the  seat  of 
national  worship,  long  fixed  within  the  borders  of  Ephraim, 
together  conspired, 

But  meanwhile,  it  maybe  discovered  in  like  manner,  that 
Judah  and  Benjamin  were  also,  on  their  part,  knitting 
themselves  in  close  alliance ;  a  union  promoted  by  conti- 
guity ;  by  the  sympathy  of  being  the  only  two  royal  tribes  ; 
by  the  connection  of  the  house  of  David  with  the  house  of 
Saul,  (the  political  importance  of  which  David  appears  to 
have  considered,  when  he  made  it  a  preliminary  of  his 
league  with  Abner,  that  Michal  should  be  restored,  whose 
heart  he  had  nevertheless  lost ;!)  and  finally,  and  perhaps 
above  all,  by  the  peculiar  position  selected  by  the  Almighty,2 
for  the  great  national  temple  which  was  soon  to  rob  Eph- 
raim of  his  ancient  honors  ;•  for  it  was  not  to  be  planted  in 
Judah  only,  or  in  Benjamin  only,  but  on  the  confines  of 
both  ;  so  that  whilst  the  altars,  and  the  holy  place,  were  to 
stand  within  the  borders  of  the  one  tribe,  the  courts  of  the 
temple  were  to  extend  into  the  borders  of  the  other  tribe,4 
and  thus,  the  two  were  to  be  riveted  together,  as  it  were, 
by  a  cramp,  bound  by  a  sacred  and  everlasting  bond,  being 
in  a  condition  to  exclaim,  in  a  sense  peculiarly  their  own, 
"  The  Temple  of  the  Lord,  the  Temple  of  the  Lord  are 
we." 

We  have  thus  traced,  by  means  of  the  hints  with  which 
Scripture  supplies  us,  (for  little  more  than  hints  have  we 

1  2  Sam.  iii.  13.  a  1  Chron.  xviii.  11.  3  Ps.  hcxviii.  67. 

«  Comp.  Josh.  xv.  63,  and  xviii.  28 ;  and  see  Lightfpot,  YoJ.  i.  p.  1050  folc 


178  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    If. 

had,)  the  two  great  confederacies  into  which  the  tribes 
were  gradually,  perhaps  unwittingly,  subsiding ;  as  well  as 
some  of  the  circumstances  by  which  either  confederacy  was 
cemented.  Let  us  pursue  the  subject,  but  still  by  means 
of  the  under-current  of  the  history  only,  towards  the  schism. 
And  now  Ephraim  was  called  upon  to  witness  prepara- 
tions for  the  transfer  of  the  seat  of  national  worship  from 
himself  to  his  great  rival,  with  something,  we  may  believe, 
of  the  anguish  of  Phinehas'  wife,  when  she  heard  that  the 
Ark  of  God  was  taken,  and  Shiloh  to  be  no  longer  its 
resting-place ;  and  I-chabod  might  be  the  name  for  the 
mothers  of  Ephraim  at  that  hour  to  give  to  their  offspring, 
seeing  that  the  glory  was  departing  from  among  them.1 
For  what  desolation  and  disgrace  were  felt  to  accompany 
this  loss,  may  be  gathered  from  more  passages  than  one  in 
Jeremiah,  where  he  threatens  Jerusalem  with  a  like  visita- 
tion. "  I  will  do  unto  this  house,"  (saith  the  Lord,  by  the 
mouth  of  the  prophet,)  "  which  is  called  by  my  name, 
wherein  ye  trust,  and  unto  the  place  which  I  gave  to  you, 
and  to  your  fathers,  as  I  have  done  to  Shiloh.  And  I  will 
cast  you  ought  of  my  sight,  as  I  have  cast  out  all  your 
brethren,  even  the  whole  seed  of  Ephraim"  And  again 
— "  I  will  make  this  house  like  Shiloh,  and  will  make  this 
city  a  curse  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth."2  With  a 
heavy  heart,  then,  must  this  high-spirited  and  ambitious 
tribe  have  found  that  "  the  place  which  God  had  chosen 
to  set  his  name  there,"  (so  often  spoken  of  by  Moses,  and 
the  choice  suspended  so  long.)  was  at  length  determined, 
and  determined  against  him ;  that  his  expectation  (for  such 
would  probably  be  indulged)  that  God  would  finally  fix  his 
seat  where  he  had  so  long  fixed  his  Tabernacle,  was  over- 
thrown; that  the  Messiah,  whom  some  sanguine  inter 

*  1  Sam.  iv.  21.  a  Jer.  vii.  14.  15;  xxvi.  6 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  179 

preters  of  the  prophets  amongst  his  sons  had  declared 
should  come  from  between  his  feet,  was  not  to  be  of  him;1 
but  that  "  refusing  the  tabernacle  of  Joseph,  and  not 
choosing  any  longer  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  (mark  the  pa- 
triotic exultation  with  which  the  Psalmist  proclaims  this,) 
God  chose  the  Tribe  of  Judah  and  Mount  Zion,  which  he 
loved."2 

Such  was  the  posture  of  the  nation  of  Israel,  such  the 
temper  of  the  times,  "  a  branch,"  as  it  were,  "  ready  to  fall, 
swelling  out  in  a  high  wall,  whose  breaking  cornet h  sud- 
denly at  an  instant,"  when  Solomon  began  to  collect  work- 
men, and  to  levy  taxes  throughout  all  Israel,  for  those  vast 
and  costly  structures  which  he  reared,  even  "  the  house  of 
the  Lord  and  his  own  house,  and  Millo,  and  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem,"3  besides  many  more  ;  in  some  of  them,  indeed, 
showing  himself  the  pious  founder,  or  the  patriot  prince ; 
but  in  some,  the  luxurious  sensualist ;  and  in  some,  again, 
the  dissolute  patron  of  idolatry.4  On,  however,  he  went ; 
and  as  if  in  small  things  as  well  as  great,  this  growing 
division  amongst  the  tribes  (fatal  as  it  was  in  many  re- 
spects to  prove)  was  ever  to  be  fostered  ;  as  if  the  coming 
event  was  on  every  occasion  to  be  casting  its  shadow  be- 
fore, a  separate  ruler,  we  read,  "  was  placed  over  all  the 
charge  of  the  house  of  Joseph  -"5  that  is,  one  individual 
was  made  overseer  over  the  work,  or  the  tribute,  or  both, 
of  the  ten  tribes  ;  for  so  I  understand  the  phrase,  agree- 
ably to  its  meaning  in  other  passages  of  Scripture.6  And 

1  See  on  this  subject,  Allix,  Reflections  upon  the  Four  last  Books  of  Mo- 
ses, p.  180. 

a  Ps.  Ixxviii.  67.    3  i  Kings  ix.  15.    «  ib.  xi.  7.    s  ib.  xi.  28. 

6  See  2  Sam.  xix.  20,  and  Pole  in  Inc.  rrporgpi?  THIC-TO?  'Iffpa>i\  Kal  rixov 
'lowrty.  Sept.  The  rights  of  primogeniture,  which  Reuben  had  forfeited, 
appear  to  have  been  divided  between  Judah  and  Joseph:  to  Judah,  the 
headship;  to  Joseph,  the  double  portion  of  the  eldest  son,  and  whatever  ela« 
belonged  ;o  the  "  birthright."  See  1  Chron.  v.  2.  Thus,  the  people  of 


180  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

who  was  he  ? — a  young  man,  an  industrious  man,  a  mighty 
man  of  valor,  (for  these  qualities  Solomon  made  choice  of 
him,)  and  above  all,  a  man  of  Ephraim  ;l  Jeroboam  it 
was. 

It  is  impossible  to  imagine  events  working  more  steadily 
towards  a  given  point,  than  here.  The  knot  had  already 
shown  itself  far  from  indissoluble,  and  now.  time,  oppor- 
tunity, and  a  skilful  hand,  combine  to  loose  it.  Here  we 
have  a  great  body  of  artificers,  almost  an  army  of  them- 
selves, kept  together  some  twenty  years — Ephraimites  and 
their  colleagues  engaged  in  works  consecrated  to  the  glory 
and  aggrandizement  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  rather  than 
to  their  own — Ephraimites  contributing  to  the  removal  of 
the  seat  of  government  from  Ephraim  to  Judah — Eph- 
raimites paying  taxes  great  and  grievous,  not  merely  to  the 
erection  of  a  national  place  of  worship,  (for  to  this  they 
might  have  given  consent,  the  command  being  of  God,) 
but  to  the  construction  of  palaces  for  princes,  never  again 
to  be  of  their  own  line ;  and  temples  for  the  idols  of  those 
princes,  living  and  dead,  which  were  expressly  contrary  to 
the  command  of  God — And  lastly,  we  have  an  Ephraim- 
ite,  even  Jeroboam,  with  every  talent  for  mischief,  endowed 
with  every  opportunity  for  exercising  it ;  put  into  an  office 
which  at  once  invested  him  with  authority,  and  secured 
him  from  suspicion,  so  that  his  future  crown  was  but  the 

Israel  became  biceps,  and  were  comprised  under  the  names  of  the  two  heads. 
See  Judges  x.  9,  where  the  house  of  Ephraim  is  synonymous  with  the  house 
of  Joseph. 

Lightfoot  considers  Joseph  to  have  been  the  principal  family  while  the 
Ark  was  at  Shiloh,  and  all  Israel  to  have  been  named  after  it,  as  in  Ps. 
Ixxx.  1,  but  that  when  God  refused  Joseph,  and  chose  Judah  for  the  chief, 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  68,  69,  then  there  began,  and  continued,  a  difference  and  dis- 
tinction betwixt  Israel  and  Judah,  Joseph  and  Judah,  Ephraim  and  Judah, 
the  rest  of  the  tribes  being  called  by  all  these  names,  in  opposition  to  Judah. 
—Lightfoot,  i.  66,  fol.  l  1  Kings  xi.  26. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  181 

consummation  of  his  present  intrigues ;  the  issue  of  his 
own  subtilty,  and  the  people's  discontent.  Nor  is  this 
matter  of  conjecture.  Is  it  not  written  in  the  Book  of 
Kings,  (most  casually,  however,)  that  the  people  of  Israel 
— I  speak  of  Israel  as  distinguished  from  Judah  and  Ben- 
jamin— in  the  first  moment  of  madness,  on  the  accession 
of  Rehoboam,  wreaked  their  vengeance — upon  whom,  of 
all  men  ? — upon  Adoniram,  the  very  man  whom  Solomon 
his  father  had  appointed  to  levy  men  and  means  through- 
out Israel,  the  tax-gatherer  for  the  erection  of  these  stupen- 
dous works  !  and  him,  the  victim  of  popular  indignation, 
did  all  Israel  stone  with  stones  till  he  died.1  The  wisdom 
and  policy  of  Solomon,  indeed,  in  spite  of  his  faults  and 
follies,  upheld  his  empire  till  the  last,  and  saved  it  from 
falling  in  pieces  before  the  time ;  but  how  completely  the 
fulness  of  that  time  was  come,  is  clear,  when  no  sooner 
was  he  dead,  than  his  son,  and  rightful  successor,  found  it 
expedient  to  hasten  to  Shechem,  there  to  meet  all  Israel, 
conscious  as  he  was,  that  however  his  title  was  admitted 
by  Judah,  it  was  quite  another  thing  whether  Ephraim 
would  give  in  his  allegiance  too  ;  and,  as  the  event  proved, 
his  apprehensions  were  not  without  a  cause.2 

And  now  Jeroboam,  a  man  to  seize  upon  any  seeming 
advantages  which  his  situation  afforded  him,  at  once  en- 
listed the  ancient  sympathies  of  the  people,  by  forthwith 
rebuilding  Shechem,  which  had  been  burned  by  Abim- 
elech,3  and  making  it  his  residence,  though  he  had  all  the 
northern  tribes  among  whom  to  choose  ;  and  with  similar 
policy,  he  proceeded  to  provide  for  them  a  worship  of  their 
own,  nor  would  allow  that  "  in  Jerusalem  alone  was  the 
place  where  men  ought  to  worship'' — a  worship,  rather,  I 
think,  a  gross  corruption,  than  an  utter  abandonment  of 

i  1  Kings  v.  14;  xii.  18.  2  ib.  xfi.  1.  3  ft.  jal  25. 

16 


182  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

the  true,  the  idolatry  of  the  second,  more  than  of  the  first 
commandment,  though  the  two  offences  are  very  closely 
connected,  and  almost  of  necessity  run  into  one  another, 
For  I  observe,  throughout  the  whole  history  of  the  kings 
of  Israel,  a  distinction  made  between  the  sin  of  Jeroboam 
and  the  worship  of  Baal,  somewhat  in  favor  of  the  former ; 
and  that,  offensive  as  they  both  were  to  the  one  Eternal 
and  Invisible  God,  Baal-worship  was  the  greater  abomina- 
tion. Perhaps,  too,  it  may  be  added,  that  this  distinction 
is  recognized  by  the  apostle,  whose  words  are,  that  "  the 
glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  was," — not  altogether  ab- 
jured— but  "changed  into  an  image  made  like  four-footed 
beasts."1  But,  however  this  may  be,  a  worship  of  their 
own,  independent  of  the  temple,  and  of  the  regular  priest- 
hood, Jeroboam  established,  still  building  upon  the  rites  of 
old  time,  and  accommodating  the  calendar  of  feasts  in  some 
measure  to  that  which  had  existed  before  ;2  and  whatever 
might  be  his  reason  for  selecting  Bethel  for  one  of  his 
calves,  whether  the  holy  character  of  the  place  itself,  or 
its  vicinity  to  the  still  holier  Shiloh,3  whither  the  people  had 
habitally  resorted,  I  discover  a  very  sufficient  reason  for 
his  choice  of  Dan  for  the  other,  exclusive  of  all  considera- 
tion of  local  convenience,  the  curious  circumstance,  that  in 
this  town  there  had  already  prevailed  for  ages  a  form  of 
worship,  or  of  idolatry  (I  should  rather  say),  very  closely 
resembling  that  which  he  now  proposed  to  set  up  through- 
out Israel,  and  furnishing  him,  if  not  with  a  strict  pre- 
cedent, at  least  with  a  most  suitable  foundation  on  which 
to  work.  For  in  this  town  stood  the  teraphim,  or  images 
of  Micah,  whatever  might  be  their  shape,  which  the 
original  founders  of  Dan  had  taken  with  them,  and  planted 
there ;  and  a  priesthood  there  was  to  minister  to  these 

i  Rom.  i.  23.  *  I  Kings  xii.  32;  Hosea  ii.  11 ;  ix.  5. 

3  Judges  xxi.  19. 


PRAT    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  183 

images,  precisely  like  that  of  Jeroboam,  not  of  the  sacer- 
dotal order,  for  they  were  sons  of  Manassah  ;  and  thus 
was  there  an  organized  system  of  dissent  from  the  national 
church,  existing  in  the  town  of  Dan,  "  all  the  time  that 
the  House  of  God  was  in  Shiloh  j"1  and  thus  was  accom- 
plished, I  suspect,  that  mysterious  prediction  of  Jacob, 
"  Dan  shall  be  a  serpent  by  the  way,  an  adder  in  the  path, 
that  biteth  the  horse-heels,  so  that  his  rider  shall  fall  back- 
ward."2 

On  the  present  occasion,  those  undesigned  coincidences, 
which  are  the  staple  of  my  argument,  have  not  been  pre- 
sented in  so  perspicuous  a  manner  as  they  might  have 
been  sometimes  ;  for  the  attention  has,  in  this  instance, 
been  directed  not  to  one  point,  singled  out  of  several,  but  to 
the  details  of  a  continuous  history.  This  I  could  not  avoid. 
At  the  same  time,  these  details,  on  a  review  of  them,  will 
be  found  to  involve  many  minute  coincidences,  and  those 
just  such  as  constitute  the  difference  between  the  best-im- 
agined story  in  the  world  and  a  narrative  of  actual  facts. 
For  let  this  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  sketch  which  I  have 
offered  of  the  gradual  development  of  the  schism  between 
Israel  and  Judah,  is  by  no  means  an  abridgment  of  the  ob- 
vious Scripture  account  of  it — very  far  from  it. — Looking  to 
that  part  of  Scripture  which  directly  relates  to  this  schism, 
and  confining  ourselves  to  that,  we  might  be  led  to  think 
the  rent  of  the  kingdom  as  sudden  and  unshapeo^an  event, 
as  the  rending  of  the  prophet's  mantle,  which  was  its  type  : 
for  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  history  is  rapid  and  abrupt. 
What  I  have  offered  is,  strictly  speaking,  a  theory  ;  a  the- 
ory by  which  a  great  many  loose  and  scattered  data,  such 
as  Scripture  affords  to  a  diligent  inquirer,  and  to  no  other, 
are,  with  much  seeming  consistency,  combined  into  a 

1  Judges  xviii.  31.  2  Gen.  xlix.  17. 


184  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II. 

whole ;  it  is  the  pattern  which  gradually  comes  out,  when 
the  many-colored  threads,  gleaned  up  as  we  have  gone 
along,  are  worked  into  a  web. 

1.  For  instance — lean  conceive  it  very  possible,  without 
claiming  to  myself  any  peculiar  sagacity,  for  a  man  to  read, 
and  not  inattentively  either,  the  sacred  books  from  Joshua 
to  Chronicles,  and  yet  never  happen  to  be  struck  with  the 
fact  that  Ephraim  was  a  leading  tribe  ;  that  it  was  the 
head,  allowed  or  understood,  of  an  easy  confederacy ;  the 
thing  is  scarcely  to  be  discovered  but  by  the  apposition  of 
many  passages,  dispersed  through  these  books,  bearing, 
perhaps,  little  or  no  relation  to  one  another,  except  that  of 
having  a  common  bias  towards  this  one  point.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  main  cause  of  this  comparative  superi- 
ority of  Ephraim,  the  accidental,  as  some  would  call  it, — 
as  we  will  call  it,  the  providential,  establishment  of  the 
Tabernacle  within  its  borders.  The  circumstance  of  Shiloh 
being  the  place  whither  all  Israel  went  up  to  worship  for 
three  centuries  or  more,  all  important  as  it  was  to  the  tribe 
whom  it  concerned,  is  not  put  forward  either  as  account- 
ing for  the  prosperity  of  Ephraim  above  its  fellows,  whilst 
in  Ephraim  the  Ark  stood  ;  or  for  the  jealousy  which  it 
discovered  towards  Judah,  when  to  Judah  the  Ark  had 
been  transferred ;  nor  yet  as  being  the  natural  means  by 
which  the  remarkable  words  of  Jacob  were  brought  to  pass, 
touching  the  future  pre-eminence  of  Ephraim  and  Judah, 
howbeit,  as  tribes,  they  were  then  but  in  the  loins  of  their 
fathers.  So  far  from  this,  when  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  we 
are  told  that  the  Tabernacle  was  set  up  in  Shiloh,  not  a 
syllable  is  added  by  which  we  can  guess  where  Shiloh 
was,  whether  in  Ephraim  or  elsewhere  ;!  and  it  is  only  af- 
ter some  investigation,  and  by  inference  at  last,  that  in 
Ephraim  we  can  fix  it. 

i  Josh,  xviii.  1. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  185 

2.  The  same  is  true  of  the  league  between  Benjamin 
and  Judah.     What   were  the   sympathies  beyond    mere 
proximity,  which  cemented  them  so  firmly,  is  altogether  a 
matter  for  ourselves  to  unravel,  if  unravel  it  we  can.     We 
bee  them,  indeed,  acting  in  concert,  as  we  see  also  the  other 
tribes  acting,  but  the  books  of  Scripture  enter  into  no  ex- 
planations in   either  case.     Nevertheless,   I  find  in  one 
place,  that  Saul,  the  first  king,  was  of  Benjamin,  and  in 
another,  that  David,  the  second  king,  was  of  Judah,  with 
a  prospect  of  a  continuance  of  the  succession  in  that  line ; 
and  here  I  perceive  a  mutual  sympathy  likely  to  spring 
out  of  the  exclusive  honors  of  the  two  royal  tribes.     Else- 
where, I  find  that  the  two  royal  houses  of  Saul  and  David 
were  united  by  marriage,  and  here  I  detect  a  further  ap- 
proximation.    I  look  again,  and  learn  that  a  temple  was 
built  for  national  worship  in  a  city,  which  one  text  places 
in  Judah,  and  a  parallel  text  in  Benjamin,  leaving  me  to 
infer  (as  was  the  fact)  that  the  city  was  on  the  confines 
of  both,  and  that  upon  the  confines  of  both  (as  was  also 
the   fact)  the  foundations   of  the  temple  were   laid.     In 
these,  and   perhaps  in  other  similar  matters,  which  might 
be  enumerated,  I  certainly  do  discover  elements  of  union, 
however  the  writers,  who  record  them,  may  never  speak 
of  them  as  such. 

3.  Again  ;  the  motives  which  operated  with  Jeroboam 
in  the  selection  of  Shechem  for  his  residence,  or  of  Dan 
for  his  idolatry,  are  not  even  glanced  at,  though,  in  either 
instance,  reasons  there  were,  we  have  seen,  to  make  the 
choice  judicious.     And  whilst  we  are  told  that  he  fled  from 
Solomon,  when  the  conspirator  was  detected  in  him,  or 
when  Ahijah's  prophecy  awakened  the  monarch's  fears, 
and  went  into  Egypt,  and  that  from  Egypt,  at  the  death 
of  Solomon,  he  hasted  back  to  take  his  part  in  those  stir- 
ring times,  no  hint,  the  most  remote,  is  thrown  out,  that 

16* 


186  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    lie 

his  sojourn  in  that  idolatrous  land,  and  the  peculiar  nature 
of  its  idolatry,  influenced  him  in  the  choice  of  a  calf  foi 
the  representation  of  his  own  God,  though  the  one  fact 
does  very  curiously  corroborate  the  other,  and  still  adds 
credibility  to  the  whole  history. 

In  all  this  I  discover  much  of  coincidence,  nothing  of  de- 
sign. I  see  an  extraordinary  revolution  asserted,  and  then 
my  eyes  being  opened,  I  perceive  that  the  seeds  of  it,  not 
however  described  as  such,  and  often  so  small  as  to  be 
easily  overlooked,  had  been  cast  upon  the  waters  genera- 
tions before.  I  see  coalitions  and  convulsions  in  the  body 
politic  of  Israel,  and  I  find,  not  without  some  pains-taking, 
and  after  all  but  in  part,  attractive  or  repulsive  principles 
at  work  in  that  body,  which,  without  being  named  as 
causes,  do  account  for  such  effects.  I  see  both  in  persons 
and  places,  so  soon  as  I  become  intimately  acquainted  with 
their  several  bearings,  something  appropriate  to  the  events 
with  which  they  are  connected,  though  I  see  nothing  of 
the  kind  at  first,  because  no  such  propriety  appears  upon 
the  surface.  These  I  hold  to  be  the  characters  of  truth, 
and  the  history  upon  which  they  are  stamped  I  ac- 
cordingly receive,  nothing  doubting — meanwhile,  not  fail- 
ing to  remark,  and  to  admire,  the  silent  transition  of  events 
into  those  very  channels  which  Jacob  in  spirit  had  de- 
clared ages  before ;  and  to  acknowledge,  without  attempt- 
ing fully  to  understand,  the  mysterious  workings  of  that 
Controlling  Power,  which  can  make  men  its  instruments 
without  making  them  its  tools ;  at  once  compelling  them 
to  do  His  will,  and  permitting  them  to  do  their  own : 
proving  himself  faithful,  and  leaving  them  free. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  187 


XVI. 

THE  next  coincidences  I  have  to  offer  will  turn  on  the 
condition  of  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah,  whether 
political  or  religious,  as  it  was  affected  by  their  separation ; 
and  will  supply  evidence  to  the  truth  of  the  history. 

"  And  Baasha,  King  of  Israel,"  we  read,  "  went  up 
against  Judah,  and  built  Ramah,  that  he  might  not  suffer 
any  to  go  out  or  come  in  to  Asa  King  of  Judah.1 

Ramah  seems  to  have  been  a  border  town,  between  the 
kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah,  and  to  have  stood  in  such 
a  position  as  to  be  the  key  to  either.  The  King  of  Israel, 
however,  was  the  party  anxious  to  fortify  it,  not  the  King 
of  Judah  ;  indeed,  the  latter,  as  we  learn  from  the  Chron- 
icles,2 did  his  best  to  frustrate  the  efforts  of  Baasha,  and 
succeeded,  apparently  not  desirous  of  having  Ramah  con- 
verted into  a  place  of  strength,  though  it  should  be  in  his 
own  keeping ;  for  Asa  having  contrived  to  draw  Baasha 
away  from  this  work,  does  not  seize  upon  it  and  complete 
it  for  himself,  but  contents  himself  with  carrying  off  the 
stones  and  the  timber,  and  using  them  elsewhere.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  it  was  an  object  with  the  kings  of 
Israel,  that  this  strong  frontier-post,  should  be  established, 
—with  the  kings  of  Judah,  that  it  should  be  removed. 
Now  this  is  singular,  when  we  remember,  that  after  the 
schism  the  numerical  strength  lay  vastly  on  the  side  of 
Israel,  one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  men  being  all 
that  Judah  could  then  count  in  his  ranks,3  whereas  eight 
hundred  thousand  were  actually  produced  a  few  years 
afterwards  by  Jeroboam,  and  even  then  he  was  not  what 
he  had  been.4  It  was  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that  the 

i  1  Kings,  xv.  17.  2  2  Chron.  xvi.  6. 

3  1  Kings  xii.  21.  <  2  Chron.  xiii.  3. 


188  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART    II» 

fear  of  invasion  would  have  been  upon  Judah  alone,  the 
weaker  state,  and  that,  accordingly,  Judah  would  have 
gladly  taken,  and  kept  possession  of  a  fortress  which  was 
the  bridle  of  the  kingdom  on  that  side,  and  have  made  it 
strong  for  himself.  Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  the  fact  was 
quite  the  other  way.  How  is  this  to  be  explained  ?  By  a 
single  circumstance,  which  accounts  for  a  great  deal  be- 
sides this  ;  though  the  explanation  presents  itself  in  the 
most  incidental  manner  imaginable,  and  without  the 
smallest  reference  to  the  particular  case  of  Ramah. 

In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  first  Book  of  Kings,  I  read 
(v.  20),  that  "  Jeroboam  said  in  his  heart,  Now  shall  the 
kingdom  return  to  the  house  of  David,  if  this  people  go  up 
to  sacrifice  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem  ;"  and 
that  accordingly  he  set  up  a  worship  of  his  own  in  Bethel 
and  Dan. 

In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  second  Book  of  Chron- 
icles. I  read  (v.  14)  that  "  he  cast  off  the  Levites'7  (as  in- 
deed it  was  most  natural  that  he  should)  "  from  executing 
the  priest's  office,"  and  ordained  him  priests  after  his  own 
pleasure.  I  read  further,  that  in  consequence  of  this  sub- 
version of  the  Church  of  God,  "  the  priests  and  the  Levites 
that  were  in  all  Israel  resorted  unto  Judah  out  of  all  their 
coasts  ;"  nor  they  only,  the  ministers  of  God,  who  might 
well  migrate,  but  that  "  after  them  out  of  all  the  tribes  of 
Israel,  such  as  set  their  hearts  to  seek  the  Lord  God  of 
their  fathers  ;  so  they  strengthened"  (it  is  added)  "  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  and  made  Rehoboam,  the  son  of  Solo- 
mon strong,"  (v.  16,  17.)  The  son  of  Nebat  was  a  great 
politician  in  his  own  way,  but  he  had  yet  to  learn,  that  by 
righteousness  is  a  nation  really  exalted,  and  that  its  right- 
eous citizens  are  those  by  whom  the  throne  is  in  truth  up- 
held. These  he  was  condemned  to  lose  ;  these  he  and  hig 
ungodly  successors  were  to  see  gradually  waste  away 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  189 

before  their  eyes ;  depart  from  a  kingdom  founded  in  in- 
iquity ;  and  transfer  their  allegiance  to  another  and  a 
better  soil.  Hence  the  natural  solicitude  of  Israel  to  put 
a  stop  to  the  alarming  drainage  of  all  that  was  virtuous 
out  of  their  borders,  and  the  clumsy  contrivance  of  a  forti- 
fication at  Ramah  for  the  purpose ;  as  though  a  spirit  of 
uncompromising  devotion  to  God,  happily  the  most  uncon- 
querable of  things,  was  to  be  coerced  by  a  barrier  of  bricks. 
Hence,  too,  the  no  less  natural  solicitude  of  Judah  to  re- 
move this  fortification,  Judah  being  desirous  that  no  ob- 
stacle, however  small,  should  be  opposed  to  the  influx  of 
those  virtuous  Israelites,  who  would  be  the  strength  of  any 
nation  wherein  they  settled.  Here  I  find  a  coincidence  of 
the  most  satisfactory  kind,  between  the  building  of  Ramah 
by  Israel,  the  overthrow  of  it  by  Judah)  and  the  tide  of 
emigration  which  was  setting  in  from  Israel  towards 
Judah,  by  reason  of  Jeroboam's  idolatry.  Yet  the  relation 
of  these  events  to  one  another  is  not  expressed  in  the  his- 
tory, nor  are  the  events  named  under  the  same  head,  or  in 
the  same  chapter. 


XVII. 

NOR  is  this  all.  Still  keeping  in  mind  this  single  con- 
sideration, that  the  more  godly  of  the  people  of  the  ten 
tribes  were  disgusted  at  the  calves,  and  retired,  we  may  at 
once  account  for  the  progressive  augmentation  of  the 
armies  of  Judah,  and  the  corresponding  decrease  of  the 
armies  of  Israel,  which  the  subsequent  history  of  the  two 
kingdoms  casually,  and  at  intervals  displays. 

Immediately  after  the  separation,  Rehoboam  assembled 
the  forces  of  his  two  tribes,  and  found  them,  as  I  have 
said,  one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  men.  Some  eigh- 


190  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

teen  years  afterwards,  Ahijah,  his  son,  was  able  to  raise 
against  Jeroboam  (who  still,  however,  was  vastly  stronger) 
four  hundred  thousand.1  This  is  a  considerable  step. 
Some  six  or  seven  years  later,  Asa,  the  son  of  Ahijah,  is 
invaded  by  a  countless  host  of  Ethiopians.  On  this  occa- 
sion, notwithstanding  the  numbers  which  must  have  fallen 
already  in  the  battle  with  Jeroboam,  he  brings  into  the 
field  five  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  :  so  rapidly  were 
the  resources  of  Judah  on  the  advance.  About  two  and 
'thirty  years  later  still,  the  army  of  Jehoshaphat,  the  son  of 
Asa,  consists  of  one  million  one  hundred  and  sixty  thou- 
sand men  ;2  a  prodigious  increase  in  the  population  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  may  trace  (the  act,  it  must  be 
observed,  is  altogether  our  own,  no  such  comparison  being 
instituted  in  the  history)  the  gradual  decay  and  depopula- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  Jeroboam  himself,  we  have 
found,  was  eight  hundred  thousand  strong.  The  contin- 
ual diminution  of  this  national  army,  we  cannot  in  the 
present  instance,  always  trace  from  actual  numbers,  as  we 
did  in  the  former ;  but,  from  circumstances  which  transpire 
in  the  history,  we  can  trace  it  by  inference.  Thus,  Ahab, 
one  of  the  successors  of  Jeroboam,  and  contemporary  with 
Jehoshaphat,  whose  immense  armaments  we  have  seen,  is 
threatened  by  Benhadad  and  the  Syrians.  Benhadad 
will  send  men  to  take  out  of  his  house,  and  out  of  the 
houses  of  his  servants,  whatever  is  pleasant  in  their  eyes.3 
It  is  the  insolent  message  of  one  who  felt  Israel  to  be  weak, 
and  being  weak,  to  invite  aggression.  Favored  by  a  panic, 
Ahab  triumphs  for  the  once  ;  but  at  the  return  of  the 
year  Benhadad  returns.  Ahab  is  warned  of  this  long 
before.  "  Go  strengthen  thyself,"  is  the  friendly  exhorta- 

1  2  Chron.  xiii.  3.  2  ib.  xvii.  14—16,  3  i  Kings  xx.  6. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  191 

lion  of  the  piophet  (v.  22.) — no  doubt  he  did  so,  to  the 
best  of  his  means,  but  after  all,  "  when  the  children  of 
Israel  were  numbered,  and  were  all  present,  and  went 
against  them,  the  children  of  Israel  pitched  before  the 
Syrians  like  two  little  flocks  of kids -,  but  the  Syrians  filled 
the  country"  (v.  27).  And  in  Jorarn's  days,  the  son  and 
successor  of  Ahab,  such  was  the  boldness  of  Syria,  and 
the  weakness  of  Israel,  that  the  former  was  constantly 
sending  marauding  parties,  "companies,"  as  they  are 
called,  or  "  bands,"1  into  Israel's  quarters,  sometimes 
taking  the  inhabitants  captive,  and  sometimes  even  lay- 
ing siege  to  considerable  towns.8  And  in  the  reign  of 
Jehu,  the  next  king,  Syria,  with  Hazael  at  its  head,  crip- 
pled Israel  still  more  terribly,  actually  seizing  upon  all  the 
land  of  Jordan  eastward,  Giiead,  the  Gadites,  the  Reuben- 
ites,  and  the  Manassites,  from  Aroer  to  Bashan.3  And  to 
complete  the  picture,  the  whole  army  of  Jehoahaz,  the 
next  in  the  royal  succession  of  Israel,  consisted  of  fifty 
horsemen,  ten  chariots,  and  ten  thousand  foot,  Syria  hav- 
ing exterminated  the  rest  ;4  so  gradually  was  Israel  upon 
the  decline. 

Now  it  must  be  remembered,  in  order  that  the  force  of 
the  argument  may  be  felt,  that  no  parallel  of  the  kind  we 
have  been  drawing  is  found  in  the  history  itself;  no  invi- 
tation to  others  to  draw  one  :  the  materials  for  doing  so  it 
does  indeed  furnish,  dispersed,  however,  over  a  wide  field, 
and  less  definite  than  might  be  wished,  were  our  object  to 
ascertain  the  relative  strength  of  the  two  kingdoms  with 
exactness ;  that,  however,  it  is  not ;  and  the  very  circum- 
stance, that  the  gradual  growth  of  Judah,  and  declension 
of  Israel,  are  sometimes  to  be  gathered  from  other  facts 
than  positive  numerical  evidence,  is  enough  in  itself  to  show 

i  2  Kings  v.  2;  vi.  2,  3;  xiii.  21.  «  Ib.  vi  14.  23. 

8  Ib.  x.  33.  4  Ib.  xiii.  7. 


192  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

that  the  historian  could  have  no  design  studiously  to  point 
out  the  coincidence  of  facts  with  his  casual  assertion,  that 
the  Levites  had  been  supplanted  by  the  priests  of  the  calves, 
and  that  multitudes  had  quitted  the  country  with  them,  in 
just  indignation. 


XVIII. 

THERE  is  still  another  coincidence  which  falls  under  the 
same  head. 

In  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  first  Book  of  Kings  (v.  28) 
I  read  that  "  Baasha  the  son  of  Ahijah,  of  the  house  of 
Issachar,  conspired  against  him  (i.  e.  Nadab  the  son  of  Je- 
roboam) at  Gibbet hon,  which  belonged  to  the  Philistines  ; 
for  Nadab  and  all  Israel  laid  siege  to  Gibbethon." 

It  appears  then  that  Gibbethon,  situated  in  the  tribe  of 
Dan,  had  by  some  means  or  other  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  Philistines,  and  that  the  forces  of  Israel  were  now  en- 
gaged in  recovering  possession  of  it.  It  may  seem  a  very 
hopeless  undertaking,  at  this  time  of  day,  to  ascertain  the 
circumstances  of  which  an  enemy  availed  himself,  in  order 
to  gain  possession  of  a  particular  town  in  Canaan,  near 
three  thousand  years  ago.  Yet,  perhaps,  the  investigation, 
distant  as  it  is,  is  not  desperate — for  in  the  twenty-first 
chapter  of  Joshua  (v.  23)  I  find  Gibbethon  and  her  suburbs 
mentioned  as  a  city  of  the  Levites.  Now  Jeroboam,  we 
have  heard,  drove  all  the  Levites  out  of  Israel ;  what  then 
can  be  more  probable,  than  that  Gibbethon,  being  thus  sud- 
denly evacuated,  the  Philistines,  a  remnant  of  the  old  en- 
emy, still  lurking  in  the  country,  and  ever  ready  to  rush  in 
wherever  there  was  a  breach,  should  have  spied  an  oppor- 
tunity in  the  defenceless  state  of  Gibbethon,  and  claimed 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  193 

it  as  their  own  71  It  is  indeed  far  from  improbable  that  this 
story  of  Gibbethon  is  that  of  many  other  Levitical  cities 
throughout  Israel ;  that  .this  is  but  a  glimpse  of  much  sim- 
ilar confusion,  misery,  and  intestine  tumult,  by  which  that 
kingdom  was  now  convulsed ;  and  though  a  solitary  fact 
in  itself,  a  type  of  many  more ; — and  thus,  in  another  way, 
did  the  profane  act  of  Jeroboam  operate  to  the  downfall  of 
his  kingdom,  and  fatally  eat  into  its  strength. 

Whether  I  arn  right  in  this  conjecture,  it  is  impossible 
to  tell ;  the  case  does  not  admit  of  positive  decision  either 
way  ;  but,  certainly,  the  grounds  upon  which  it  rests  are, 
to  say  the  least,  very  suspicious ;  and  if  they  are  sound,  as 
I  think  they  are,  I  cannot  imagine  a  point  of  harmony 
more  complete,  or  more  undesigned,  than  that  which  we 
have  found  between  these  half  dozen  words  touching  Gib- 
bethon, a  Levitical  city,  lapsing  into  the  hands  of  the  Phi- 
listines, and  the  expulsion  of  the  Levites  out  of  Israel  by 
the  sin  of  Jeroboam. 


XIX. 

NOR  is  this  all.  There  is  another  and  a  still  more  val- 
uable coincidence  yet,  connected  with  -this  part  of  my  sub- 

1  That  the  Philistines  were  thus  dispersed  over  the  land  may  be  gathered 
from  many  hints  in  Scripture ;  even  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  they  were  to 
be  found,  much  more  in  Israel.  "  Some  of  the  Philistines  brought  Jehosha- 
phat  presents  and  tribute  silver,"  2  Chron.  xvii.  11.  Probably  the  mis- 
creants mentioned  I  Kings  xv.  12,  whom  Asa  expelled,  and  those  mentioned 
xxii.  46,  whom  Jehoshaphat  his  son  drove  out,  and  those  again  mentioned 
2  Kings  xxiii.  7,  who  were  established  even  at  Jerusalem,  whom  Josiah  cast 
out,  were  all  of  this  nation.  And  there  still  were  Hittites  somewhere  at 
hand,  who  had  even  kings  of  their  own,  1  Kings  x.  29;  2  Kings  vii.  6? 
and  we  read  of  a  land  of  the  Philistines,  where  the  Shunamitess  sojourned 
during  the  famine,  2  Kings  viii.  2— all  evident  tokens,  that  a  considerable 
body  of  the  primitive  inhabitants  of  Palestine  still  dwelt  in  it. 

17 


194  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

ject ;  more  valuable,  because  involving  in  itself  a  greater 
number  of  particulars,  and,  therefore,  more  liable  to  a  flaw, 
if  the  combination  was  artificial.  When  Elijah  has  worked 
his  great  miracle  on  the  top  of  Carmel,  and  kindled  the 
sacrifice  by  fire  from  heaven,  he  has  to  fly  from  Jezebel  for 
his  life,  who  swears  that,  by  the  morrow,  she  will  deal  with 
him  as  he  had  dealt  with  the  prophets  of  Baal  her  god.  and 
slay  him.1  Now  when  it  was  so  common  a  practice,  as  we 
have  seen,  for  the  godly  amongst  the  people  of  Israel  to 
betake  themselves  to  Judah  in  their  distress,  there  to  wor- 
ship the  God  of  their  Fathers  without  scandal  and  without 
persecution,  it  seems  obvious  that  this  was  the  place  for 
Elijah  to  repair  unto  ; — the  most  appropriate,  for  it  was  be- 
cause he  had  been  very  jealous  for  the  Lord  that  he  was 
banished — the  most  convenient,  for  no  other  was  so  near ; 
he  had  but  to  cross  the  borders,  one  would  think,  and  he 
was  safe.  Yet  neither  on  this  occasion,  nor  yet  during  the 
three  preceding  years  of  drought,  when  Ahab  sought  to  lay 
hands  upon  him,  did  Elijah  seek  sanctuary  in  Judah. 
First  he  hides  himself  by  the  brook  Cherith,  which  is  be- 
fore Jordan  ;2  then  at  "  Zarephath  which  belongs  to  Zidon ;" 
and  though  he  does  at  last,  when  his  case  seems  desperate, 
and  his  hours  are  numbered  by  Jezebel's  sentence  "  come 
in  haste  to  Beer-sheba,  which  belongeth  to  Judah"* still  it 
is  after  a  manner  which  bespeaks  his  reluctance  to  set  foot 
within  that  territory,  even  more  than  if  he  had  evaded  it 
altogether.  Tarry  he  will  not ;  he  separates  from  his  ser- 
vant, probably  for  the  greater  security  of  both  ;  goes  a  day's 

1  1  Kings  xviii.  40;  xix.  2. 

2  It  ie  true  that  there  is  a  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  situation  of 
this  brook  Cherith ;  but  from  the  direction  given  to  Elijah  being  to  turn 
Eastivard,  when  he  was  to  go  there,  he  being  at  the  time  in  Samaria,  it  i8 
xlear  that  it  could  not  be  in  Judah.— Consult  Lightfoot,  Vol.  n.  318,  fol. 

*  1  Kings  xix.  3. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  195 

journey  into  the  wilderness,  and  forlorn,  and  spirit-broken 
and  alone,  begs  that  he  may  die  ;  then  he  wanders  away, 
being  so  taught  of  God,  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  till  he 
comes  to  Horeb,  the  Mount  of  God,  and  there  conceals  him- 
self in  a  cave.  Now  all  this  is  at  first  sight  very  strange 
and  unaccountable;  strange  and  unaccountable,  that  the 
Prophet  of  God  should  so  studiously  avoid  Judah,  the  peo- 
ple of  God,  governed  as  it  then  was  by  Jehoshaphat,  a 
prince  who  walked  with  God,1 — Judah  being  of  all  others 
a  shelter  the  nearest  and  most  convenient.  How  is  it  to 
be  explained? 

I  doubt  not  by  this  fact;  that  Jehoshaphat  king  of 
Judah  had  already  married,  or  was  then  upon  the  point  of 
marrying,  his  son  Jehoram  to  Athaliah,  the  daughter  of 
this  very  Ahab,  and  this  very  Jezebel,  who  were  seeking 
Elijah's  life  ;2  his,  therefore,  was  not  now  the  kingdom  in 
which  Elijah  could  feel  that  a  residence  was  safe ;  for  by 
this  ill-omened  match  (such  it  proved)  the  houses  of  Je- 
hoshophat  and  Ahab  were  so  strictly  identified,  that  we 
find  the  former,  when  solicited  by  Ahab  to  join  him  in  an 
expedition  against  Ramoth-gilead,  expressing  himself  in 
such  terms  as  these :  "  I  am  as  thou  art,  my  people  as  thy 
people,  my  horses  as  thy  horses  ;"3  and  in  allusion,  as  it 
should  seem,  to  this  fraternity  of  the  two  kings,  Jehosha- 
phat is  in  one  place  actually  called  "  King  of  Israel."4 

It  may  be  demonstrated  that  this  fatal  marriage  (for 
such  it  was  in  its  consequences)  was,  at  any  rate,  con- 
tracted not  later  than  the  tenth  or  eleventh  of  Ahab's 
reign,  and  it  might  have  been  much  earlier ;  whilst  these 
scenes  in  the  life  of  Elijah  could  not  have  occurred  within 
the  first  few  years  of  that  Veign,  seeing  that  Ahab  had  to 

»  2  Kings  ixii.  43.  2  Ibv  viii.  18 ;  2  Chron.  rriii.  X. 

3  1  Kings  ziii.  4.  *  2  Chron.  xxi.  2. 


196  THE   VERACITY    OP   THE  PART    II. 

fill  up  the  measure  of  his  wickedness  after  he  came  to  the 
throne,  before  the  Prophet  was  cormnissioQed  to  take  up 
his  parable  against  him.  I  mention  these  two  facts,  as 
tending  to  prove  that  the  exile  of  Elijah  could  not  have 
fallen  out  long,  if  at  all,  before  the  marriage  j  and  there- 
fore that  the  latter  event,  whether  past  or  in  prospect, 
might  well  bear  upon  it.  I  say  that  it  may  be  proved  that 
this  marriage  was  not  later  than  the  tenth  or  eleventh  of 
Ahab — for 

1.  Ahaziah,  the  fruit  of  the  marriage,  the  son  of  Jehoram 
and  Athaliah,  began  to  reign  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Joram. 
son  of  Ahab,  king  of  Israel.1 

2.  But  Joram  began  to  reign  in  the  eighteenth  year  of 
Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah.2 

3.  Therefore,  the  twelfth  of  Joram  would  answer  to  the 
thirtieth  of  Jehoshaphat,  (had  the  latter  reigned  so  long ; 
it  did,  in  fact,  answer  to  the  seventh  of  Jehoramy  the  son 
of  Jehoshaphat  ;3  but  there  is  no  need  to  perplex  the  com- 
putation by  any  reference  to  this  reign ;)  and  accordingly 
Ahaziah  must  have  begun  his  reign  in  what  would  corres- 
pond to  the  thirtieth  of  Jehoshaphat. 

4.  But  he  was  twenty-two  when  he  began  it.     There- 
fore he  must  have  been  born  about  the  eighth  year  of  Je- 
hoshaphat;  and  consequently  the  marriage  of  Jehoram 
and  Athaliah,  which  gave  birth  to  him,  must  have  been 
contracted  at  least  as  early  as  the  sixth  or  seventh  of  Je- 
hoshaphat. 

5.  Now  Jehoshaphat  began  to  reign  in  the  fourth  of 
Ahab,  king  of  Israel ;  therefore  the  marriage  must  have 
been  solemnized  as  early  as  the  tenth  or  eleventh  of  Ahab 
— how  much  earlier  it  was  solemnized,  in  fact,  we  cannot 
tell ;  but  the  result  is  extremely  curious ;  and  without  the 

i  2  Kings  viii.  25,  26.  2  ib,  iii.  1. 

3  Comp.  2  Kings  iii.  1 ;  viii.  18.     1  Kings  xxii.  42. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  197 

most  remote  allusion  to  it  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  histo- 
rian, as  being  an  incident  in  any  way  governing  the  move- 
ments of  Elijah,  it  does  furnish,  when  we  are  once  in  pos- 
session of  it,  a  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  shyness 
of  Elijah  to  look  for  a  refuge  in  a  country  where,  almost 
under  any  other  circumstances,  it  was  the  most  natural  he 
should  have  sought  one ;  and,  where,  at  any  other  time, 
since  the  division  of  the  kingdoms,  he  certainly  would  have 
found  not  only  a  refuge,  but  a  welcome. 


xx. 

I  HAVE  already  advanced  several  arguments  for  the 
truth  of  that  remarkable  portion  of  Scripture  which  tells 
the  history  of  the  great  prophet  Elijah,  and  showed,  that, 
on  comparing  some  of  the  reputed  events  of  his  life  with 
the  political  and  domestic  state  of  his  country  at  the  time, 
the  reality  of  those  events  was  established  beyond  all  rea- 
sonable doubt.  But  I  have  not  yet  done  with  this  part  of 
my  subject ;  and  I  press  on  the  notice  of  rny  readers  once 
again,  as  I  have  repeatedly  pressed  it  before,  the  considera- 
tion that  these  casual  indications  of  truth,  found  in  the 
very  midst  of  miracles  the  most  striking,  give  great  support 
to  the  credibility  of  those  miracles ;  that  the  portions  of 
the  history  on  which  these  seals  of  truth  are  set,  combine 
with  the  other  and  more  extraordinary  portions  so  inti 
mately,  that  if  the  former  are  to  be  received,  the  latter  can- 
not be  rejected  without  extreme  violence,  and  laceration 
of  the  whole :  that  standing  or  falling,  they  must  stand  or 
fall  together. 

I  spoke  before  of  the  flight  of  Elijah,  and  gave  my  rea- 
sons for  believing  it.  I  speak  now  of  a  trifling  incident  in 
that  magnificent  scene  which  is  said  to  have  been  the  pro-, 

17* 


198 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II 


logue  to  his  flight.  This  it  is.  Twelve  barrels  of  water, 
at  the  command  of  the  prophet,  are  poured  upon  the  sacri- 
fice, and  fill  the  trench.  But  is  it  not  a  strange  thing,  that 
at  a  moment  of  drought  so  intense,  when  the  king  himself 
and  the  governor  of  his  house,  trusting  the  business  to  no 
inferior  agent,  actually  undertook  to  examine  with  their 
own  eyes  the  watering-places  throughout  all  the  land,  di- 
viding it  between  them,  to  see  if  they  could  save  the  re- 
mainder of  the  cattle  alive  j1  when  the  prophet  had  been 
long  before  compelled  to  leave  Cherith,  because  the  brook 
was  dried  up,  and  for  no  reason  else,  and  to  crave  at  the 
hands  of  the  widow-woman  of  Zarephath,  whither  he  had 
removed,  though  a  land  of  danger  to  him,  a  little  water  in 
a  vessel  that  he  might  drink  ;  is  it  not,  I  say,  a  gross  oversight 
in  the  sacred  writer,  to  make  Elijah,  at  such  a  time,  give  or- 
der for  this  wanton  waste  of  water  above  all  things,  whereof 
scarcely  a  drop  was  to  be  found  to  cool  the  tongue ;  and 
not  only  so,  but  to  describe  it  as  forthcoming  at  once,  ap- 
parently without  any  search  made,  an  ample  and  abundant 
reservoir  ?2  How  can  these  things  be  ?  Let  us  but  remem- 
ber the  local  position  of  Carmel,  that  it  stood  upon  the  coast, 
as  an  incidental  remark  in  the  course  of  the  narrative  tes- 
tifies; that  the  water  was  therefore  probably  sea-water; 
and  all  the  difficulty  disappears.  But  the  historian  does 
not  trouble  himself  to  satisfy  our  surprise,  being  altogether 
unconscious  that  he  has  given  any  cause  for  it ;  he,  honest 
man  as  he  was,  tells  his  tale,  a  faithful  one  as  he  feels, 
and  the  objection  which  we  have  alleged,  and  which  a 
single  word  would  have  extinguished,  he  leaves  to  shock 
us  as  it  may,  nothing  heeding. 

But  would  not  an  impostor  have  preserved  thf»  keeping 

1  1  Kings,  xviii.  5. 

2  Bishop  Hall  in  his  Contemplations  shows  himself  aware  of  the  diffi- 
culty in  this  passage,  but  not  of  its  probable  solution.   B.  xviii.  Comtempl.  7 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  199 

of  his  picture  better,  and  been  careful  not  to  violate  seem- 
ing probabilities  by  this  prodigal  profusion  of  water,  whilst 
his  action  was  laid  in  a  miraculous  drought,  for  the  re- 
moval of  which,  indeed,  this  very  sacrifice  was  offered — 
or,  if  of  these  twelve  barrels  he  must  needs  speak,  by  way 
of  silencing  all  insinuation,  that  the  whole  was  a  scene 
got  up.  and  that  fire  was  secreted,  would  he  not  have 
studiously  told  us,  at  least,  that  the  water  was  from  the 
sea  which  lay  at  the  foot  of  Carmel,  and  thus  have  guarded 
himself  against  sceptical  remarks  ?  Now  when  I  see  this 
momentous  period  of  Elijah's  ministry  compassed  in  on 
every  side  with  tokens  of  truth  so  satisfactory  ;  when  I 
see  so  much  in  his  history  established  as  matter  of  fact, 
am  I  to  consider  all  that  is  not  so  established,  merely  be- 
cause materials  are  wanting  for  the  purpose,  as  matters  of 
fiction  only  ?  Or,  taking  my  stand  upon  the  good  faith 
with  which  his  flight,  at  least,  is  recorded,  an  event  which, 
in  itself,  I  look  upon  as  proved  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt 
by  a  former  coincidence ;  or  upon  the  good  faith  with 
which  his  challenge  at  Carmel  is  recorded,  an  event  not 
unsatisfactorily  confirmed  by  this  coincidence;  or  rather 
upon  the  veracity  of  both  facts,  shall  I  not  feel  my  way 
along  from  the  prophet's  recoil  on  setting  foot  in  Judah.  to 
the  anger  of  Jezebel,  with  whom  Judah  was  then  in  close 
alliance ;  from  this  anger  of  hers,  to  the  cause  assigned 
for  it  in  the  slaughter  of  her  priests ;  from  the  slaughter 
of  her  priests,  to  the  authority  by  which  he  did  the  deed, 
himself  a  defenceless  individual,  in  a  country  full  of  the 
inveterate  worshippers  of  the  god  of  those  priests ;  and 
thus,  finally,  shall  I  not  ascend  to  the  mighty  miracle  by 
which  that  authority  was  conveyed  to  him,  God  in  pledge 
thereof  touching  the  mountain  that  it  smoked  ? 


200 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 


XXI. 


TOWARDS  the  end  of  the  famine  caused  by  this  drought 
Elijah  is  commanded  by  God  to  "  get  him  to  Zerephath, 
which  belongeth  to  Zidon,  and  dwell  there  ;  where  a 
widow-woman  was  to  sustain  him."1  He  goes  ;  finds  the 
woman  gathering  sticks  near  the  gates  of  the  city :  and 
asks  her  to  fetch  him  a  little  water  and  a  morsel  of  bread. 
She  replies,  "  As  the  Lord  thy  God  liveth,  I  have  not  a 
cake,  but  an  handful  of  meal  in  a  barrel,  and  a  little  oil  in 
a  cruse  :  and,  behold,  I  am  gathering  two  sticks,  that  1 
may  go  in  and  dress  it  for  me  and  my  son,  that  we  may 
eat  it,  and  die."2 

This  widow-woman  then  dwelt  at  Zarephath,  or  Sa- 
repta,  it  seems,  which  belongeth  to  Zidon.  Now  from  a 
passage  in  the  book  of  Joshua3  we  learn  that  the  district 
of  Zidon,  in  the  division  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  fell  to  the 
lot  of  Asher.  Let  us  then  turn  to  the  thirty-third  chapter 
of  Deuteronomy,  where  Moses  blesses  the  Tribes,  and  see 
the  character  he  gives  of  this  part  of  the  country  :  "  of 
Asher  he  said,  Let  Asher  be  blessed  with  children  ;  let  him 
be  acceptable  to  his  brethren,  and  let  him  dip  his  foot  in 
oil  ;"4  indicating  the  future  fertility  of  that  region,  and  the 
nature  of  its  principal  crop.  It  is  likely,  therefore,  that  at 
the  end  of  a  dearth,  of  three  years  and  a  half,  oil  should 
be  found  there,  if  anywhere.  Yet  this  symptom  of  truth 
occurs  once  more  as  an  ingredient  in  a  miraculous  history 
— for  the  oil  was  made  not  to  fail  till  the  rain  came.  The 
incident  itself  is  a  very  minute  one  ;  and  minute  as  it  is, 
only  discovered  to  be  a  coincidence  by  the  juxtaposition  of 
several  texts  from  several  books  of  Scripture.  It  would 

1  1  Kings  xvii.  9.  2  ib.  Xvii.  12. 

3  Josh.  xix.  28.  «  Deut.  xxxiii.  24. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  201 

require  a  very  circumspect  forger  of  the  story  to  introduce 
the  mention  of  the  oil ;  and  when  he  had  introduced  it, 
not  to  be  tempted  to  betray  himself  by  throwing  out  some 
slight  hint  why  he  had  done  so. 


XXII. 

NOT  long  after  this  period,  the  history  of  Elisha  fur- 
nishes us  with  a  coincidence  characteristic,  I  think,  of 
truth.  It  appears  that  "  a  great  woman "  of  Shechem 
had  befriended  the  prophet,  finding  him  and  his  servant, 
from  time  to  time,  as  they  passed  by  that  place,  food  and 
lodging.  In  return  for  this  he  sends  her  a  message,  "Be- 
hold thou  hast  been  careful  for  us  with  all  this  care ; 
what  is  to  be  done  for  thee  ?  wouldest  thou  be  spoken  for 
to  the  king,  or  to  the  captain  of  the  host  2"1  Now  we 
should  have  gathered  from  previous  passages  in  Elisha's 
history,  that  Jehoram,  who  was  then  king  of  Israel,  was 
not  one  with  whom  he  was  upon  such  terms  as  this  pro- 
position to  the  Shunammite  implies.  Jehoram  was  the 
son  of  Ahab,  his  old  master  Elijah's  enemy,  and  appar- 
ently no  friend  of  his  own  ;  for  when  the  three  kings,  the 
king  of  Israel,  the  king  of  Judah,  and  the  king  of  Edom, 
in  their  distress  for  water,  in  their  expedition  against 
Moabj  wished  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  through  Elisha,  his 
answer  to  the  king  of  Israel  was,  "  As  the  Lord  of  hosts 
liveth,  before  whom  I  stand,  surely  were  it  not  that  I  re- 
gard the  presence  of  Jehoshaphat  the  king  of  Judah,  1 
would  not  look  toward  thee,  nor  see  thee"*  What  then 
had  occurred  in  the  interval  betwixt  this  avowal,  and  his 
proposal  to  the  Shunammite  to  use  his  influence  in  her 

»  2  Kings  iv.  13.  2  Ib.  iii.  14. 


202  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

favor  at  court,  which  had  changed  his  position  with  re- 
spect to  the  king  of  Israel  ?  It  may  be  supposed  that  it 
was  the  sudden  supply  of  water,  which  he  had  furnished 
these  kings  with,  by  God's  permission,  thus  saving  the  ex- 
pedition ;  and  the  defeat  of  the  enemy,  to  which  it  had 
been  instrumental.1  This  would  naturally  make  Elisha 
feel  that  the  king  of  Israel  was  under  obligations  to  him, 
and  that  he  could  ask  a  slight  favor  of  him  without  seem- 
ing to  sanction  the  character  of  the  man  by  doing  so. 
And  this  solution  of  the  case  appears  to  be  the  more  prob- 
able, from  Elisha  coupling  the  "  captain  of  the  host"  with 
the  king ;  as  though  his  interest  was  equally  good  with 
him  too,  which  he  might  reasonably  consider  it  to  be, 
when  he  had  done  the  army  such  signal  service. 


XXIII. 

A  WORD  upon  the  marriage  of  which  I  spoke  in  a 
former  paragraph.  Evil  was  the  day  for  Judah  when  the 
son  of  Jehoshaphat  took  for  a  wife  the  daughter  of  Ahab, 
and  of  Jezebel,  ten  times  the  daughter.  Singular,  indeed, 
is  the  hideous  resemblance  of  Athaliah  to  her  mother, 
though  our  attention  is  not  at  all  directed  to  the  likeness  ; 
and  were  the  fidelity  of  the  history  staked  upon  the  few 
incidents  in  it  which  relate  to  this  female  fiend,  it  would 
be  safe — so  characteristic  are  they  of  the  child  of  Jezebel 
— the  same  thirst  for  blood  ;  the  same  lust  of  dominion, 
whether  in  the  state  or  the  household  ;  the  same  unfem- 
inine  influence  over  the  kings  their  husbands ;  Jezebel, 
the  setter-up  of  Baal  in  Israel ;  Athaliah  in  Judah — those 
bitter  fountains,  from  which  disasters  innumerable  flowed 

i  2  Kings  iii.  16,  17. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES. 


203 


to  either  kingdom,1  preparing  the  one  for  a  Shalmanezer, 
the  other  for  a  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  this  by  the  way. 
Whatever  might  be  the  motive  which  induced  so  good  a 
prince  as  Jehoshaphat  to  sanction  this  alliance ;  whether, 
indeed,  it  was  of  choice,  and  in  the  hope  of  re-uniting  the 
two  kingdoms,  which  is  probable  ;  or  whether  it  was  of 
compulsion,  the  act  of  an  impetuous  son,  and  not  his  own 
— for  the  subsequent  history  of  Jehoram  shows  how  little 
he  was  disposed  to  yield  to  his  father's  will,  when  his  own 
was  thwarted  by  it2 — certain  it  is  that  it  proved  a  sad 
epoch  in  the  fate  and  fortunes  of  Judah  ;  a  calamity  al- 
most as  withering  in  its  effects  upon  that  kingdom,  as  the 
sin  of  Jeroboam  had  been  upon  his  own.  Up  to  the  time 
of  Jehoshaphat,  Judah  had  prospered  exceedingly  ;  hence- 
forward there  is  a  taint  of  Baal  introduced  into  the  blood 
royal,  and  a  curse  for  a  long  time,  though  not  without 
intermissions,  seems  to  rest  upon  the  land.  The  even' 
march  with  which  the  two  kingdoms  now  advance  hand 
in  hand  is  early  seen  ;  they  were  now  bent  upon  grinding 
at  the  same  mill ;  and  a  remarkable  instance  of  coinci- 
dence without  design  here  presents  itself,  which  the  gen- 
eral observations  I  have  been  making  may  serve  to  intro- 
duce. 

1.  Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Ahab,  I  read,3  began  to  reign 
over  Israel  in  Samaria  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  Jehosha- 
phat king  of  Judah. 

2.  But  Jehoram,  the  son  of  Ahab,  began  to  reign  over 
Israel  in  Samaria  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat 
king  of  Judah,  his  brother  Ahaziah  being  dead.4 

3.  Elsewhere,  however,  it  is  said  that  this  Jehoram,  the 
son  of  Ahab,  began  to  reign  in  the  second  year  of  Jehoram 
son  of  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah.5 

i  See  Hosea  xiii.  1.        2  2  Chron.  xxi.  3,  4.         3  1  Kings  xxii.  51. 
<  2  Kings  in.  1.  &  Ib.  i.  17. 


204  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II. 

4.  Therefore,  the  second  year  of  Jehoram  son  of  Je- 
hoshaphat  must  have  corresponded  with  the  eighteenth  of 
Jehoshaphat ;  or,  in  other  words,  Jehoram  must  have  begun 
to  reign  in  the  seventeenth  of  Jehoshaphat. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  maze  of  dates  and  names  thus 
brought  together  from  various  places  in  Scripture,  through 
which  the  argument  is  to  be  pursued,  renders  all  con- 
trivance, collusion,  or  packing  of  facts,  for  the  purpose  of 
supporting  a  conclusion,  utterly  impossible.  Now  the  re- 
sult of  the  whole  is  this,  that  Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Ahab 
king  of  Israel,  and  Jehoram,  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat  king 
of  Judah,  both  began  to  reign  in  the  same  year,  in  the 
respective  kingdoms  of  their  fathers,  their  fathers  being" 
nevertlieless  themselves  alive,  and  active  sovereigns  at 
the  time.  Is  there  anything  by  which  this  simultaneous 
adoption  of  these  young  men  to  be  their  fathers'  colleagues 
can  be  accounted  for  ?  An  identity  so  remarkable  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  confederate  kingdoms,  can  scarcely  be 
accidental.  Let  us  then  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  event 
was  in  progress  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat^ 
the  year  in  which  the  two  appointments  were  made. 

Now  Jehoshaphat  began  to  reign  in  the  fourth  of  Ahab.1 
But  Ahab  died  in  the  great  battle  against  Ramoth-gilead, 
having  reigned  twenty-two  years  ;2  he  died  therefore  in 
the  eighteenth  of  Jehoshaphat. 

Accordingly,  in  the  seventeenth  of  that  monarch,  the 
year  in  which  we  are  concerned,  the  two  kings  were  pre- 
paring to  go  up  against  Ramoth, — a  measure  upon  which 
they  did  not  venture  without  long  and  grave  deliberation, 
concentration  of  forces,  application  to  prophets  touching 
their  prospects  of  success.3 

But  when  they  approached  this  hazardous  enterprise  in 

t  1  Kings  xxii.  41.  2  II  ivi.  29.  8  Ib.  xxii. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  205 

a  spirit  so  cautious,  can  anything  be  more  probable,  than 
that  each  monarch  should  then  have  made  his  son  a  part- 
ner of  his  throne,  in  order  that,  during  his  own  absence 
with  the  army,  there  might  be  one  left  behind  to  rule  at 
home,  and  in  case  of  the  father's  death  in  battle,  (Ahab 
did  actually  fall,)  to  reign  in  his  stead?  There  can  be 
little  or  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  true  solution  of  the  case, 
though  the  text  itself  of  the  narrative  does  not  contain 
the  slightest  intimation  that  it  is  so. 


XXIV. 

SUCH  arrangements,  indeed,  were  not  unusual  in  those 
days  and  in  those  countries.  Here  is  a  further  proof  of  it, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  coincidence  which  is  a  companion 
to  the  last. 

1.  "In  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash  king  of  Judah 
began  Jehoash,  the  son  of  Jehoahaz,  to  reign  over  Israel 
in  Samaria."     So  we  are  told  in  one  passage.1     But,  in 
another,2  that,   "  In  the  second  year  of  Joash  (Jehoash), 
the  son  of  Jehoahaz,  king  of  Israel,  reigned  Amaziah,  the 
son  of  Joash,  king  of  Judah." 

2.  Therefore,  Amaziah,  king  of  Judah,  reigned  in  the 
thirty-ninth  of  Joash,  king  of  Judah. 

3.  Now  we  learn  from  a  passage  in  the  second  Book  of 
Chronicles,3  that "  Joash  reigned  forty  years  in  Jerusalem." 

4.  Therefore  Amaziah  must  have  begun  to  reign  one 
year  at  least  before  the  death  of  his  father  Joash. 

Can  we  discover  any  reason  for  this  ?.  The  clue  will  be 
found  in  a  parenthesis  of  half  a  line,  which  the  following 
paragraph  in  the  Chronicles  presents :  "  And  it  came  to 

i  2  Kings  xiii.  10.  2  Ib.  xiv.  1.  32  Chron.  xxiv.  1. 

18 


206  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

pass  at  the  end  of  the  year,  that  the  host  of  Syria  came 
up  against  him  (Joash) ;  and  they  came  to  Jerusalem,  and 
destroyed  all  the  princes  of  the  people. . . .  And  when  they 
were  departed  from  him  (for  they  left  him  in  great  dis- 
eases) his  own  servants  conspired  against  him,  for  the 
blood  of  the  sons  of  Jehoiada  the  priest,  and  slew  him  on 
his  bed,  and  he  died."1 

The  great  diseases  therefore  under  which,  it  seems, 
Josah  was  laboring  at  the  moment  of  the  Syrian  invasion, 
presents  itself  as  the  probable  cause  why  Amaziah  his  son, 
then  in  the  flower  of  his  age,  was  admitted  to  a  share  in 
the  government  a  little  before  his  time.  Yet  how  circuit- 
ously  do  we  arrive  at  this  conclusion  !  The  Book  of  Kings 
alone  would  not  establish  it ;  the  Book  of  Chronicles  alone 
would  not  establish  it.  From  the  former,  we  might  learn 
when  Amaziah  began  to  reign ;  from  the  latter,  when 
Joash,  the  father  of  Amaziah,  died ;  and  accordingly,  a 
comparison  of  the  two  dates  would  enable  us  to  determine 
that  the  reign  of  Amaziah  began  before  that  of  Joash 
ended  ;  but  neither  document  asserts  the  fact  that  the  son 
did  reign  conjointly  with  the  father.  We  infer  it,  that  is 
all.  Neither  does  the  Book  of  Kings  make  the  least  al- 
lusion to  any  accident  whatever  which  rendered  this  co- 
partnership necessary  ;  nor  yet  the  Book  of  Chronicles  di- 
rectly, only  an  incidental  parenthesis,  a  word  or  two  in 
length,  intimates  that  at  the  time  of  the  Syrian  invasion 
Joash  was  sick. 

I  have  adduced  this  coincidence,  strong  in  itself,  chiefly 
in  illustration  and  confirmation  of  the  principles  upon  which 
the  last  proceeded ;  the  simultaneous  and  premature  as- 
sumption of  the  sceptre  by  the  sons  of  Jehoshaphat  and 
Ahab,  as  compared  with  the  date  of  the  combined  expedi- 

i  2  Chron.  rriv.  23  25. 


PRAT      I.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  207 

tion  of  those  two  kings  against  Ramoth-gilead.  But  I 
must  not  dismiss  the  subject  altogether  without  calling 
your  attention  to  the  undesignedness  manifested  in  either 
case.  Nothing  can  be  more  latent  than  the  congruity,  such 
as  it  is,  which  is  here  found ;  either  history  might  be  read 
a  thousand  times  without  a  suspicion  that  any  such  con- 
gruity was  there ;  investigation  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
this  discovery  of  it ;  patient  disembroilment  of  a  labyrinth 
of  names,  many  being  identical,  where  the  parties  are  not 
the  same :  scrutiny  and  comparison  of  dates,  seldom  so 
given  as  to  expedite  the  labors  of  the  inquirer.  All  this 
must  be  done,  or  these  singular  tokens  of  truth  escape  us, 
and  many,  I  doubt  not,  do  escape  us,  after  all.  What  im- 
posture can  be  here?  What  contrivers  could  be  prepared 
for  such  a  sifting  of  their  plausible  disclosures  ?  What 
pretenders  could  be  provided  with  such  vouchers  ;  or  hav- 
ing provided  them,  would  bury  them  so  deep  as  that  they 
should  run  the  risk  of  never  being  brought  to  light  at  all, 
and  thus  frustrate  their  own  end  in  the  fabrication  ? 

Once  more  I  commit  to  my  readers  facts  which  speak,  I 
think,  to  the  truth  of  Scripture,  as  things  having  authority -, 
facts,  which  afford  proof  infallible  that  there  is  a  mine  of 
evidence,  '  deep  things  of  God,'  in  this  sense,  in  the  sacred 
writings,  which  they  who  look  upon  them  with  a  hasty 
and  impatient  glance — and  such  very  generally  is  the 
manner  of  sceptics,  and  almost  always  the  manner  of  youth- 
ful sceptics, — leave  under  their  feet  unworked  ;  a  treasure 
hid  in  a  field  which  they  only  who  will  be  at  the  pains  to 
dig  for  it  will  find. 

But  if  an  investigation,  such  as  this  that  we  are  conduct- 
ing, leads  to  such  a  conclusion — to  a  conclusion,  I  mean, 
that  there  is  a  substratum  of  truth  running  through  the 
Bible,  which  none  can  discover  but  he  who  will  patiently 
and  perseveringly  sink  the  well  at  the  bottom  of  which  it 


208  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

lies — and  such  is  the  conclusion  at  which  we  must  arrive 
— is  it  not  a  lamentable  thing  to  hear,  as  we  are  sometimes 
condemned  to  hear  it,  the  superficial  objection,  or  supercil- 
ious scoff,  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of  one  whose  very 
speech  bewrays  that  he  has  walked  over  the  surface  of  his 
subject  merely,  if  even  that,  and  who  nevertheless  pretends 
and  proclaims  that  truth  he  finds  not  ? 

XXV. 

IN  considering  the  political  and  religious  condition  of  the 
two  kingdoms  after  the  division,  I  have  looked  at  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  calves  at  Bethel  and  Dan  by  Jeroboam 
as  a  great  national  epoch  ;  as  a  measure  pregnant  with 
consequences  far  more  numerous  and  more  important,  fetch- 
ing a  much  larger  compass,  and  affecting  many  more  inter- 
ests, than  its  author  probably  contemplated.  I  have  now 
to  fix  upon  another  event,  the  wide  wasting  effects  of  which 
I  have  already  hinted  as  another  national  crisis,  one  which, 
in  the  end,  most  materially  influenced  the  fortunes  both  of 
Israel  and  Judah ;  the  thing  in  itself  apparently  a  trifle  ; 
"  but  God,"  says  Bishop  Hall,  "  lays  small  accidents  as 
foundations  for  greater  designs ;"  I  speak  of  the  marriage 
between  Ahab  and  Jezebel. — It  is  thus  announced — "  And 
it  came  to  pass,  as  if  it  had  been  a  light  thing  for  him  to 
walk  -in  the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  that  he  took 
to  wife  Jezebel,  the  daughter  of  Ethbaal,  king  of  the  Zido- 
nians,  and  went  and  served  Baal,  and  worshipped  him. 
And  he  reared  up  an  altar  for  Baal  in  the  house  of  Baal, 
which  he  had  built  in  Samaria.  And  Ahab  made  a  grove 
— and  Ahab  did  more  to  provoke  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  to 
anger  than  all  the  kings  of  Israel  that  were  before  him."1 

i  1  Kings  xvi  31. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  209 

Here  we  have  the  beginning  of  a  new  and  more  pestilent 
idolatry  in  Israel.  The  Zidonian  queen  corrupts  the  coun- 
try to  which  she  is  unhappily  translated,  with  her  own 
rooted  heathenish  abominations,  and  priests  of  Baal,  and 
prophets  of  Baal,  being  under  her  own  special  protection 
and  encouragement,  multiply  exceedingly  ;  and  so  seduc- 
tive did  the  voluptuous  worship  prove,  that,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  seven  thousand  persons,  all  Israel  had,  more  or 
less,  partaken  in  her  sin.  Jeroboam's  calf  had  been  a  base 
and  sordid  representative  of  God,  but  a  representative  still ; 
Jezebel's  Baal  was  an  audacious  rival.  Nevertheless,  Is- 
rael could  not  find  in  their  hearts  to  put  away  the  God  of 
their  fathers  altogether ;  and  accordingly  we  hear  Elijah 
exclaim,  "  How  long  halt  ye  between  two  opinions  ?  if  the 
Lord  be  God,  follow  him,  and  if  Baal,  then  follow  him."1 

I  do  not  think  sufficient  notice  has  been  taken  of  the 
curious  manner  in  which  this  sudden  ejaculation  of  the 
prophet  corresponds  with  a  number  of  unconnected  inci- 
dents, characteristic  of  the  times,  which  lie  scattered  over 
the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles.  I  shall  collect  a  few 
of  them,  that  it  may  be  seen  how  well  their  confronted 
testimony  agrees  together,  and  how  strictly,  but  undesign 
edly,  they  all  coincide  with  that  state  of  public  opinion 
upon  religious  matters  which  the  words  of  Elijah  express, 
a  halting  opinion. 

Thus,  in  the  scene  on  Mount  Carmel,  we  find,  that  after 
the  priests  of  Baal  had  in  vain  besought  their  god  to  give 
proof  of  himself,  and  it  now  became  Elijah's  turn  to  act} 
"He  repaired  the  altar  of  the  Lord  that  was  broken 
down,"2  as  though  here,  on  the  top  of  Carmel,  were  the 
remains  of  an  altar  to  the  true  God,  (one  of  those  high 
places  tolerated,  however  questionably,  by  some  even  of 

»  1  Kings  xviii.  21.  2  Ib.  xviii.  30. 

18* 


210  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  II, 

the  most  religious  kings,)  which  had  been  superseded  by 
an  altar  to  Baal  since  Ahab's  reign  had  begun  ;  the  prophet 
not  having  to  build,  it  seems,  but  only  to  renew.  And 
agreeably  to  this,  we  have  Obadiah,  the  governor  of  Ahab's 
own  house,  represented  as  a  man  "  who  feared  the  Lord 
greatly,  and  saved  the  prophets  of  the  Lord ;"  he,  therefore, 
no  apostate,  but  Ahab,  in  consideration  of  his  fidelity, 
winking  at  his  faith ;  perhaps,  indeed,  himself  not  so  much 
sold  to  Baal- worship,  as  sold  into  the  hands  of  an  imperious 
woman,  who  would  hear  of  no  other.  And  so  "Ahab 
served  Baal  a  little"  said  Jehu,  his  successor,1  another  of 
the  equivocal  tokens  of  the  times  ;  whilst  the  command  of 
this  same  Jehu,  that  the  temple  of  Baal  should  be  searched 
before  the  slaughter  of  the  idolaters  began,  lest  there  should 
be  there  any  of  the  worshippers  of  the  Lord,  instead  of 
the  worshippers  of  Baal  only,  still  argues  the  prevalence 
of  the  same  half  measure  of  faith.  Moreover,  the  charac- 
ter of  the  four  hundred  prophets  of  Ahab,  which,  by  its 
contradictions,  has  so  much  perplexed  the  commentators ; 
their  number  corresponding  with  that  of  those  who  ate  at 
Jezebel's  table ;  their  parable,  nevertheless,  taken  up  in  the 
Lord's  name  ;  still  their  veracity  suspected  by  Jehoshaphat, 
who  asks  if  "  there  be  no  prophet  of  the  Lord  besides ;" 
and  the  mutual  ill-will  which  manifests  itself  between 
them  and  Micaiah  ;  are  all  very  expressive  features  of  the 
same  doubtful  mind.2  Then  the  pretence  by  which  Ahab, 
through  Jezebel,  takes  away  the  life  of  Naboth,  is  *'  blas- 
phemy against  God  and  the  king,"  against  the  true  God, 
no  doubt,  the  tyrant  availing  herself  of  a  clause  in  the 
Levitical  law  ;2  a  law  which  was  still,  therefore,  as  it  should 
seem,  the  law  of  the  land,  even  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 

1  2  Kings,  x.  18. 

2  1  Kings  xviii.  19 ;  xxii.  6—24 ;  2  Chron.  xviiL  10—23. 

3  Levit.  xxiv.  16. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  211 

howbeit  standing  in  the  anomalous  position  of  deriving  its 
authority  from  an  acknowledgment  of  Jehovah  alone,  and 
yet  left  to  struggle  against  the  established  worship  of  Baal, 
too  ;  enough  in  itself  to  confound  the  people,  to  compromise 
all  religious  distinctions,  and  to  insure  a  halting  creed  in 
whatever  nation  it  obtained.  Thus,  whilst  I  see  the  prophets 
of  the  Lord  cut  off  under  the  warrant  of  Jezebel,  and  the 
government  of  the  Lord  virtually  renounced ;  at  another 
time  I  see,  as  I  have  said,  a  man  condemned  to  death  for 
blasphemy  against  the  Lord,  under  the  warrant  of  Leviti- 
cus ;  and  the  two  sons  of  an  Israelitish  woman  sold  to  her 
creditor  for  bondsmen,  under  the  same  law ;  l  and  the  lepers 
shut  out  at  the  gate  of  Samaria,  still  under  the  same,2  and 
contrary,  as  it  should  appear,  to  the  Syrian  practice ;  for 
Naaman,  though  a  leper,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  an 
outcast,  but  to  have  had  servants  about  him,  and  to  have 
executed  the  king's  commands,  and  even  to  have  expected 
Elisha  to  come  out  to  him,  and  put  his  hand  upon  the 
place.  What  can  argue  the  embarrassment  under  which 
Israel  was  laboring  in  its  religious  relations  more  clearly 
than  all  this  ? — the  law  of  Moses  acknowledged  to  be  valid, 
and  its  provisions  enforced,  though  its  claim  to  the  obe- 
dience of  the  people  only  rested  upon  having  God  for  its 
author ;  that  God  whom  Baal  was  supplanting.  Here,  I 
think,  is  truth  ;  it  would  have  been  little  to  the  purpose  to 
produce  flagrant  proofs  that  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
worship  of  Baal  prevailed  together  in  Israel ;  those  might 
have  been  the  result  of  contrivance ;  but  it  is  coincidence, 
and  undesigned  coincidence,  to  find  a  prophet  exclaiming, 
in  a  moment  of  zeal,  "How  long  halt  ye,"  and  then  to 
find  indications,  some  of  them  grounded  upon  the  merest 
trifles  of  domestic  life,  that  the  people  did  halt. 

1  2  Kings  iv.  1 ;  Levit.  xxv.  39, 

*  Ib.  vii.  3;  Levit  xiii.46;  xiv  3;  Numt.  v.  23. 


212  THE    VERACITY   OP   THE  PART    II. 


XXVI. 

BUT  this  marriage  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  so  ruinous  to 
Israel,  was  scarcely  less  so  to  Judah  ;  for  in  Judah  the 
same  miserable  alliance  was  to  be  acted  over  again  in  the 
next  generation,  and  with  the  very  same  consequences. 

Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  had  taken  to  himself  Jezebel,  a 
heathen,  for  his  wife,  and  Israel,  through  her,  became  a 
half-heathen  nation.  Jehoram,  king  of  Judah,  had  taken 
to  himself  Athaliah,  the  daughter  of  Jezebel,  worthy  in  all 
respects  of  the  mother  who  bore  her,  to  be  his  wife ;  and 
now  Judah,  in  like  manner,  and  for  the  like  cause,  fell 
away.  Of  Ahab,  it  is  said,  "  But  there  was  none  like  unto 
Ahab,  who  did  sell  himself  to  work  wickedness  in  the  sight 
of  the  Lord,  whom  Jezebel  his  wife  stirred  up"{  Such 
were  the  bitter  fruits  of  his  marriage.  Of  Jehoram,  it  is 
said,  "  And  he  walked  in  the  ways  of  the  kings  of  Israel, 
as  did  the  house  of  Ahab,  for  the  daughter  of  Ahab  was 
his  wife,  and  he  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord."2  Such 
in  turn  was  this  ill-omened  union  to  him  and  his.  Either 
of  these  women,  therefore,  was  the  curse  of  the  kingdom 
over  which  her  husband  ruled  ;  and  as  we  have  already 
seen  some  of  the  mischief  brought  into  Israel  (faulty  enough 
before)  by  Jezebel,  so  shall  we  now  see  still  more  brought 
into  Judah  (hitherto  a  righteous  and  prosperous  people)  by 
Athaliah,  the  daughter  of  Jezebel.  I,  however,  shall  not 
enter  into  the  subject  further  than  to  draw  from  it  what  I 
can  of  evidence. 

And  here,  before  I  proceed  further,  let  me  notice  a  cir- 
cumstance, trivial  in  itself,  which  tends,  however,  to  estab- 
lish this  reputed  alliance  of  the  houses  of  Jehoshaphat  and 

»•  1  Kings  ixi.  25.  «  2  Kings  viii.  18. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  213 

Ahab,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  There  is  no  more  cause,  in- 
deed, for  calling  this  in  question,  than  any  other  historical 
incident  of  an  indifferent  nature ;  but  still,  I  am  unwilling 
to  let  any  opportunity  pass  of  drawing  out  these  tokens  of 
truth,  whether  significant  or  not ;  be  the  gifts  great  or 
small,  which  are  cast  into  the  treasury  of  evidence,  they 
contribute  to  swell  the  amount ;  they  contribute  to  justify 
the  general  conclusion,  that  truth  is  still  the  pervading  princi- 
ple of  the  sacred  writings,  in  minute  as  well  as  in  momen- 
tous matters,  in  things  which  are,  or  which  are  not,  of  a 
kind  to  provoke  investigation. 

I  am  told  then,  that  a  son  of  the  King  of  Judah  marries 
a  daughter  of  the  King  of  Israel. — Now  agreeably  to  this, 
for  some  time  afterwards,  I  discover  a  marked  identity  of 
names  in  the  two  families,  so  much  so,  as  to  render,  while 
it  lasts,  the  contemporary  history  of  the  two  kingdoms  ex- 
tremely complicated  and  embarrassing.  Thus,  Ahab  is 
succeeded  by  a  son  Ahaziah,1  on  the  throne  of  Israel ;  and 
Jehoram  is  also  succeeded  by  a  son  Ahaziah,  (the  nephew 
of  the  other,)  on  the  throne  of  Judah.2  Again,  Ahaziah, 
King  of  Israel,  dies,  and  he  is  succeeded  by.  a  Jehoram  ;3 
but  a  Jehoram,  the  brother-in-law  of  the  former,  is  at  the 
same  moment  on  the  throne  of  Judah,  as  his  father's  col- 
league.4 How  much  longer  this  mutual  interchange  of 
family  names  might  have  continued,  it  is  impossible  to  tell, 
for  Ahab's  house  was  cut  off  in  the  next  generation  by 
Jehu,  and  a  new  dynasty  was  set  up  ;  but  the  thing  itself 
is  curious  ;  and  however  our  patience  may  be  put  to  the 
proof,  in  disengaging  the  thread  of  Israel  and  Judah  at  this 
point  of  their  annals,  we  have  the  satisfaction  of  feeling 
that  the  intricacy  of  the  history  at  such  a  moment  is  a  very 
strong  argument  of  the  truth  of  the  history.  For,  although 

i  1  Kings  xxii.  49.  2  2  Chron.  xxii.  1. 

3  2  Kings  i.  17;  Hi.  1.  4  Ib.  i.  17. 


214  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

no  remark  is  made  upon  this  identity  of  names,  nor  the 
least  hint  given  as  to  the  cause  of  it,  we  at  once  perceive 
that  it  may  very  naturally  be  referred  to  the  union  which 
is  said  to  have  taken  place  between  the  houses,  and  which 
many  circumstances  tend  to  show,  however  extraordinary 
it  may  seem,  was  a  cordial  union 


XXVII 

I  NOW  proceed  to  consider  some  of  the  public  conse- 
quences of  this  marriage  to  Judah. 

In  the  eighteenth  verse  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  second 
Book  of  Kings,  we  are  informed  of  Jehoram's  wickedness, 
and  at  whose  instigation  it  was  wrought. — In  the  twenty- 
second  verse,  we  find  it  said,  (after  some  account  of  a  rebel- 
lion of  the  Edomites)  "  then  Libnah  revolted  at  the  same 
time." — No  cause  is  assigned  for  this  revolt  of  Libnah  ;  the 
few  words  quoted  are  incidentally  introduced,  and  the  sub- 
ject is  dismissed.  But  in  the  Chronicles1  a  cause  is  as- 
signed, though  still  in  a  manner  very  brief  and  inexplicit ; 
"  the  same  time,  also,"  (so  the  narrative  runs,)  "  did  Libnah 
revolt  from  under  his  hand  ;  because  he  had  forsaken  the 
Lord  God  of  his  fathers  ;"  that  is,  because,  at  the  per- 
suasion of  Athaliah — for  she,  we  have  found,2  was  his 
state-adviser — Jehoram  did  what  Ahab,  his  father-in-law, 
had  done  at  the  persuasion  of  the  mother  of  Athaliah,  set 
up  a  strange  god  in  his  kingdom,  even  Baal.  Thus,  this 
supplementary  clause,  short  as  it  is,  may  serve,  I  think,  as 
a  clue  to  explain  the  revolt  of  Libnah.  For  Libnah,  it 
appears  from  a  passage  in  Joshua,  was  one  of  the  cities  of 
Judah,  given  to  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron  ;3  no  won- 

i  2  Chron.  xxi.  10.         s  2  Kings  viii.  18.         3  Josh.  xv.  42 ;  xxL  13. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  215 

der,  therefore,  that  the  citizens  of  such  a  city  should  be 
the  first  to  reject  with  indignation  the  authority  of  a  mon- 
arch, who  was  even  then  setting  at  nought  the  God  whose 
servants  they  especially  were,  and  who  was  substituting 
for  him  the  abomination  of  the  Zidonians.  This  is  the 
explanation  of  the  revolt  of  Libnah.  Yet,  satisfactory  as 
it  is,  when  we  are  once  fairly  in  possession  of  it,  the  ex- 
planation is  anything  but  obvious.  Libnah,  it  is  said,  re- 
volts, but  that  revolt  is  not  expressly  coupled  with  the  in- 
troduction of  Baal  into  the  country  as  a  god  ;  nor  is  that 
pernicious  novelty  coupled  with  the  marriage  of  Athaliah  ; 
nor  is  any  reason  alleged  why  Libnah  should  feel  pecul- 
iarly alive  to  the  ignominy  and  shame  of  such  an  act ; 
for  where  Libnah  was,  or  what  it  was,  or  whereof  its  in- 
habitants consisted,  are  things  unknown  to  the  readers  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  would  continue  unknown,  were 
they  not  to  take  advantage  of  a  hint  or  two  in  the  Book 
of  Joshua. 


XXVIII. 

1  AM  confirmed  in  the  supposition  that  the  revolt  of 
Libnah  is  correctly  ascribed  to  the  indignation  of  the 
Priests  at  the  worship  of  Baal,  by  other  circumstances  in 
the  history  of  those  times ;  for  many  things  conspire  to 
show,  on  the  one  side,  the  reckless  idolatry  of  the  royal 
house  of  Judah,  (so  true  to  their  God  till  the  blood  of  the 
house  of  Almb  began  to  run  in  their  veins,)  and,  on  the 
other  side,  the  general  disaffection  of  the  ministers  of  God, 
and  the  desperate  condition  to  which  they  were  reduced. 
For  when  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  was  to  be  repaired, 
which  was  done  by  Joash,  the  grandson  of  Athaliah,1  the 

*  2  Chron.  xxiv.  4. 


216 


THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    II. 


effects  of  her  wicked  misrule  incidentally  come  out.  Not 
only  had  the  utensils  of  the  Temple  been  removed  to  the 
house  of  Baal,  but  its  very  walls  had  in  many  places  been 
broken  up,  the  ample  funds  put  into  the  hands  of  the  young 
king  being  principally  devoted,  not  to  decorations,  but  to 
the  purchase  of  substantial  materials,  timber  and  stones ; 
and  from  a  casual  expression  touching  the  rites  of  the 
Temple,  that  "  there  were  offered  burnt-offerings  in  the 
House  of  the  Lord  continually  all  the  days  of  Jehoi- 
ada"1  it  is  pretty  evident  that,  whilst  Athaliah  was  in 
power,  even  these  had  been  discontinued  ;  that  even  Judah, 
the  tribe  of  God's  own  choice,  even  Zion,  the  hill  which 
he  loved,  paid  him  no  longer  any  public  testimony  of  alle- 
giance, the  faithful  city  herself  become  an  harlot.  So 
wanton  was  the  defiance  of  the  most  High  God,  during  the 
reigns  of  Jehoram,  Ahaziah,  and  the  subsequent  usurpa- 
tion of  Athaliah,  when  these  her  husband  and  her  son 
were  dead. 

On  the  other  hand,  Joash,  the  rightful  possessor  of  the 
throne  of  Judah,  an  infant  plucked  from  among  his  slaugh- 
tered kindred  by  an  aunt,  and  saved  from  the  murderous 
hands  of  a  grandmother,  grew  up  unobserved — where,  of 
all  places  ? — in  the  Lord's  House,  contiguous  as  it  was  to 
the  palace  of  Athaliah,  who  little  dreamed  that  she  had 
such  an  enemy  in  such  a  quarter ;  the  High  Priest  his 
protector  ;  the  Priests  and  Levites  his  future  partisans  ;  so 
that  when  events  were  ripe  for  the  overthrow  of  Athaliah, 
the  child  was  set  up  as  the  champion  of  the  Church  of 
God,  so  long  prostrate  before  Baal,  but  still  not  spirit-broken 
— cast  down,  but  not  destroyed  ;  and  by  that  Church,  and 
no  party  else,  was  he  established  ;  and  the  unnatural 
usurper  was  hurled  from  her  polluted  throne,  with  the 

i  2  Chron.  xxiv.  14. 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  217 

shriek  of  treason  upon  her  lips  ;  and  having  lived  like  her 
mother,  like  her  mother  she  died,  killed  under  her -own 
walls,  and  among  the  hoofs  of  the  horses.1  This,  I  say,  is 
a  very  consistent  consummation  of  a  resistance,  of  which 
the  revolt  of  Libnah,  some  fourteen  years  before,  was  the 
earnest :  in  the  revolt  of  Libnah,  a  city  of  the  Priests,  the 
disaffection  of  the  Priests  prematurely  breaks  out ;  in  the 
dethronement  of  Athaliah,  achieved  by  the  Priests,  that 
same  disaffection  finds  its  final  issue  ;  the  interval  between  * 
the  two  events  having  sufficed  to  fill  up  the  iniquity  of 
Baal's  worshippers,  and  to  organize  a  revolt  upon  a  greater 
scale  than  that  of  Libnah,  "vhich  restored  its  dues  to  the 
Church,  and  to  God  his  servants,  his  offerings,  and  his 
house. 

But  will  any  man  say  that  the  sacred  historian  so 
ordered  his  materials,  that  such  incidents  as  these  which  I 
have  named  should  successfully  turn  up — that  he  guarded 
his  hands  in  all  this  wittingly — that  he  let  fall,  with  con- 
summate artifice,  first  a  brief  and  incidental  notice  (a  mere 
parenthesis)  of  the  revolt  of  a  single  town,  suppressing 
meanwhile  all  mention  of  its  peculiar  constitution  and 
character,  though  such  as  prepared  it  above  others  for 
revolt — that  then,  after  abandoning  not  only  Libnah,  but 
the  subject  of  Judah  in  general,  and  applying  himself  to 
the  affairs  of  Israel  in  their  turn,  he  should  finally  revert 
to  his  former  topic,  or  rather  to  a  kindred  one.  and  lay 
before  us  the  history  of  a  general  revolt,  organized  by  the 
Priests ;.  and  all,  in  the  forlorn  hope  that  the  uniform 
working  of  the  same  principle  of  disaffection  in  the  same 
party,  and  for  the  same  cause,  in  two  detached  instances, 
would  not  pass  unobserved  ;  but  that  such  consistency 
would  be  detected,  and  put  down  to  the  credit  of  the  nar- 

*  2  Kings  xi.  16. 

19 


218  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    II. 

rative  at  large  ?  This  surely  is  a  degree  of  refinement 
much  beyond  belief. 

Thus  having  traced  this  singular  people  through  a  long 
and  most  diversified  history,  we  are  come  to  see  planted  in 
both  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  the  idolatrous  principle 
which  was  shortly  to  be  the  downfall  of  both.  God  usu- 
ally works  out  his  own  ends  in  the  way  of  natural  conse- 
quence, even  his  judgments  being  in  general  the  ordinary 
fruits  of  the  offences  which  called  for  them ;  and  in  this 
instance  the  calves  of  Jeroboam  and  the  groves  of  Baal 
were  the  sin ;  and  from  the  sin  were  made  to  flow,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  the  disgust  of  all  virtuous  Israelites,  and 
the  intestine  divisions  resulting  from  it;  the  interruption 
or  suspension  of  all  public  worship ;  the  mischiefs  of  a  per- 
petual conflict  between  a  national  code  of  laws  still  in 
force,  and  national  idolatry,  no  less  actually  established 
than  the  laws  ;  the  depravity  of  morals  which  that  idola- 
try encouraged,  and  which  served  to  sap  the  people's 
strength ;  all,  elements  of  ruin  which  only  wanted  to  be 
developed  in  order  to  be  fatal,  and  which  in  a  very  few 
generations  did  their  work. 

It  is  curious  to  observe  how  the  origin,  the  progress,  and 
the  consummation  of  the  devastating  principle,  correspond 
in  the  two  kingdoms. 

Israel  is  the  first  to  offend,  both  by  the  sin  of  Jeroboam 
and  the  sin  of  Ahab  ;  and  Israel  is  the  first  to  have  illus- 
trious Prophets  sent  to  him  to  counteract  the  evil,  if  it 
were  possible, — whom,  however,  he  persecutes  or  slays; 
and  Israel  is  the  first  to  be  carried  into  captivity. 

Judah,  after  some  years,  follows  the  example  of  his 
rival.  Idolatry,  even  the  worst,  that  of  the  same  Baal,  is 
brought  into  Judah.  Prophets,  many  and  great,  are  now 
in  turn  sent  to  warn  him  of  the  evil  to  come  ;  but  now  he 
too  has  declared  for  the  groves;  and  those  Prophets  he 


PART    II.  HISTORICAL    SCRIPTURES.  219 

stones,  in  one  instant  even  between  the  porch  and  the 
altar ;  and,  accordingly,  by  nearly  the  same  interval  as 
Judah  followed  Israel  in  his  idolatries,  did  he  follow  him 
in  his  fate,  and  went  after  him  to  sit  down  and  weep  by 
the  waters  of  Babylon.  There  is  something  very  coin- 
cident in  this  relative  scale  of  sin  and  suffering. 

It  was  the  office  of  those  prophets  of  whom  I  spoke,  not 
only  to  foretell  things  to  come,  but  also  to  denounce  the 
sins  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived ;  they  were  censors, 
as  well  as  seers.  Of  the  earlier  race,  Ahijah,  Elijah, 
Elisha,  and  others,  we  have  no  writings  at  all,  otherwise 
they  would  have  doubtless  offered  in  their  province  as 
moralists,  a  mirror  of  their  own  age,  in  their  own  nation 
of  Israel.  Of  the  latter  race,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  more, 
we  possess  the  records,  and  in  those  records  not  unfre- 
quently  a  picture  of  the  condition  of  either  kingdom  ;  of 
Judah  more  especially.  Here,  therefore,  a  new  scene 
opens  before  us  ;  a  new,  though  limited  field  of  argument, 
such  as  I  have  been  exploring,  presents  itself.  It  remains 
to  produce  a  few  such  allusions  to  contemporary  transac- 
tions, as  are  blended  with  the  prophecies — to  examine 
how  they  tally  with  facts,  as  we  find  them  set  forth  else- 
where, by  the  sacred  historians ;  and  thence  to  derive 
vouchers  for  the  veracious  character  of  the  prophets  them- 
selves, such  as  may  promote  a  disposition  to  give  them  at 
least  a  favorable  hearing. 


THE  VERACITY 


OF   THE 


PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES 


PART  III. 

THUS  far  I  have  been  applying  the  test  of  coincidence 
without  design  to  the  historical  Scriptures,  I  will  now  do 
the  same  by  some  of  the  prophetical,  founding  the  argu- 
ment on  a  comparison  of  these  latter  writings  with  those 
details  relating  to  the  period  in  which  the  Prophet  is  said  to 
have  lived,  given  in  the  concluding  chapters  of  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles.  It  is  possible  that  these  coin- 
cidences may  be  thought  proportionally  fewer  in  number 
than  those  which  other  parts  of  Scripture  have  been  found 
to  supply ;  but  it  must  be  remembered,  that  the  books  of 
the  Prophets  are  not  of  any  great  bulk,  and  that  the  chap- 
ters in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  which  furnish 
materials  for  checking  them,  are  neither  long  nor  many. 
Moreover,  which  is  the  chief  consideration,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  Prophecy,  as  might  be  expected,  is  commonly 
framed  in  terms  so  general,  and  often  so  dark  and  figura- 
tive, that  it  is  easy  to  overlook  a  latent  allusion  to  an  event 
of  the  day  which  it  may  really  contain,  even  where  some 
notice  of  that  event  does  happen  also  to  be  left  on  record 


PART    III.        THE    PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  221 

in  the  contemporary  history.     With  regard  to  such  coin- 
cidences as  we  do  find,  it  may  be  observed, 

1.  First,  that  the  argument  they  furnish  has  a  twofold 
value ;  since  it  not  only  demonstrates  the  Historian  and 
the  Prophet  to  be  veracious,  the  one,  in  the  narrative  of 
facts,  the  other,  in  such  allusions  to  them  as  blend  with 
passages  more  strictly  prophetical ;  but  that  it  also  serves 
to  determine  the  date  of  the  Prophet  himself;  a  date, 
which  when  once  obtained,  fixes  many  other  events  of 
which  he  clearly  seems  to  tell,  far  in  futurity  with  respect 
to  him,  and  so  ministers  to  our  conviction  that  it  could  not 
be  of  human  knowledge  that  he  spoke.  We  indeed,  on 
whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come,  may  be  supposed  to 
stand  less  in  need  of  such  a  confirmation  of  our  faith  in 
the  Prophets ;  for  since  the  objects  of  their  prophecy  are 
two ;  the  more  immediate  events  which  were  coming  upon 
several  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  especially  those  of 
Israel  and  Judah  ;  and  the  more  distant  Advent  of  the 
Messiah  ;  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  their  claim 
to  the  prophetical  character  arising  out  of  this  latter  pro- 
vince, where  they  appear  as  heralds  of  the  Gospel,  is  strong 
to  us,  because  we  do  see  the  actual  circumstances  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  coming,  correspond  in  so  express  a  manner 
with  the  sketch  made  of  them,  by  Isaiah,  for  example,  (as 
nobody  in  this  instance  can  dispute,)  so  many  hundred 
years  before.  But  their  contemporaries,  or  the  generations 
who  lived  next  to  them  (and  these  were  the  persons  who 
admitted  their  writings  into  the  prophetical  canon,)  were 
cut  off  from  this  ground  of  confidence  in  their  message  ; 
they  must  have  rested  their  belief  in  them  upon  the  ac- 
complishment of  their  political  prophecies  alone,  such 
being  the  only  ones  of  which  they  lived  to  see  the  com- 
pletion. Although  therefore  the  mere  fact  of  the  Jews 
having  of  old  agreed  to  acknowledge  them  as  Prophets,  is 

19* 


THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    III. 

enough  to  show  that  such  evidence  alone  sufficed  for  them, 
they  being  the  best  judges  of  what  was  sufficient ;  still  if 
we  have  the  means  of  convincing  ourselves  that  these  re- 
markably exact  prophecies,  (claiming  at  least  so  to  be,) 
which  related  to  the  Assyrian  invasions,  the  captivity,  and 
the  like,  were  certainly  delivered  long  before  the  events 
arose,  we  shall  have  a  further  reason,  over  and  above  an 
experience  of  the  fulfilment  of  those  concerning  the  Mes- 
siah, for  putting  our  trust  in  them,  and  considering  them 
Prophets  indeed. 

2.  Nor  is  this  all.  For  Secondly^  it  may  be  observed, 
that  the  effect  of  this  evidence  from  coincidence  without 
design  is  to  show,  that  the  prophet  sometimes  occupied  a 
considerable  range  of  years  in  the  delivering  of  his  predic- 
tions— thus,  that  the  whole  Book  of  Isaiah,  was  not  struck 
off  at  a  heat,  was  no  extempore  effusion,  but  a  collection 
of  many  distinct  predictions  (claiming  to  be  such)  uttered 
from  time  to  time,  as  events,  or  the  heart,  hot  within  the 
prophet,  prompted  them  ;  that  it  was  in  truth,  as  the  title 
describes  it,  "  the  vision  which  he  saw  concerning  Judah 
and  Jerusalem,  in  the  days  of  Uzziah^  Jotham,  Ahaz 
and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah."*  Now  this  is  an  impor- 
tant consideration,  because  it  argues  that  the  prophet  did 
not  deliver  himself  of  some  happy  oracle  for  the  once,  and 
earn  the  reputation  of  a  seer  by  an  accident,  but  maintain- 
ed that  character  through  a  life— a  circumstance  which 
goes  very  far  in  itself  to  exclude  tWe  possibility  of  impos- 
ture, nothing  being  so  fatal  to  fraud  of  this  kind  as  time. 

Having  made  these  preliminary  remarks,  I  shall  now 
address  myself  to  the  argument  itself. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES. 


IN  the  seventh  chapter  of  Isaiah  we  read  that  Ahaz  king 
of  Judah  was  threatened  with  invasion  by  the  confederate 
armies  of  Syria  and  Israel :  and  that  Isaiah  the  prophet 
was  commissioned  by  God  to  foretell  to  Ahaz  the  result  of 
this  invasion  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  the  disastrous  end  of 
one  of  those  kingdoms,  if  not  both  of  them,  after  a  period 
of  threescore  and  five  years.  And  the  charge  is  thus  given 
to  Isaiah  :  "  Go  forth  now  to  meet  Ahaz,  thou  and  Shear- 
jashub  thy  son,  at  the  end  of  the  conduit  of  the  upper 
pool,  in  the  highway  of  the  fuller's  field,"  (v.  3).  Here 
was  to  be  the  scene  of  the  prophecy ;  and,  accordingly, 
here  it  professes  to  have  been  actually  spoken.  To  this 
point  I  would  draw  the  attention  of  my  readers  because 
the  incidental  mention  of  the  place  where  it  was  to  be  de- 
livered, furnishes  us  with  the  means  of  showing  with  great 
probability  that  a  prophecy  it  was.  For,  why  at  the  end 
of  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool  ?  No  reason  whatever  is 
assigned,  or  even  hinted  for  the  choice  of  this  particular 
spot,  rather  than  the  palace  of  Ahaz,  or  the  city-gate. 
But  on  turning  to  the  thirty-second  chapter  of  the  second 
Book  of  Chronicles,  in  which  are  described  the  preparations 
made  by  king  Hezekiah  some  thirty  years  afterwards, 
against  a  similar  invasion  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib 
and  the  Assyrians,  I  find  this  to  be  amongst  the  number, 
that  u  he  took  counsel  with  his  princes  and  his  mighty 
men  to  stop  the  waters  of  the  fountains  which  were  with- 
out the  city  ;  and  they  did  help  him.  So  there  was  gath- 
ered much  people  who  stopped  all  the  fountains^  and  the 
brook  that  ran  through  the  midst  of  the  land,  saying, 
Why  should  the  kings  of  Assyria  come,  and  find  much 
water?"1 

1  2  Chron.  mil.  3—5. 


224:  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III. 

Here  then  in  this  passage  of  Hezekiah's  history,  have  we 
the  key  to  the  passage  in  the  history  of  Ahaz,  which  is 
now  engaging  our  inquiry,  and  in  which  the  prophecy  of 
Isaiah  is  involved.  "  Isaiah  was  to  go  forth  to  meet  Ahaz, 
at  the  end  of  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool ;"  to  go  forth — 
the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  therefore,  was  without  the 
walls,  open  to  the  use  of  the  enemy.  Ahaz,  therefore,  we 
may  conjecture,  was  employed,  as  we  know,  though  not 
from  Isaiah,  Hezekiah  under  similar  circumstances  after- 
wards was  employed,  with  a  number  of  his  people  in  pro- 
viding a  defence  for  the  city  by  stopping  the  fountains,  of 
which  the  enemy  might  get  possession.  The  place,  there- 
fore, was  appropriate  to  the  subject  of  the  message  with 
which  Isaiah  was  charged,  namely,  that  their  labors  were 
needless,  for  that  God  would  take  care  of  their  city ;  and  it 
was  convenient  for  the  publication  of  it,  because  the  work 
interested  and  occupied  both  the  sovereign  and  the  people, 
and  consequently  a  multitude  were  there  gathered  together, 
ready  to  hear  it.  Now  it  appears  to  me,  that  this  casual 
mention  of  Ahaz,  being  for  some  reason  or  other  to  be  found 
by  the  prophet  at  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  to  which 
he  was  to  go  forth,  without  one  word  of  note  or  explana- 
tion why  he  should  be  found  there,  or  what  was  its  exact 
site,  or  why  it  should  be  a  fit  place  for  delivering  the  mes- 
sage, coupled  with  the  satisfactory  cause  for  his  being  there, 
which  by  the  merest  chance  we  are  enabled  of  ourselves  to 
supply  from  another  quarter,  does  establish  it  as  a  fact,  that 
Ahaz  was  occupied  with  concerting  measures  of  defence 
for  the  city  when  Isaiah  hailed  him.  But  if  so,  Isaiah's 
message  must  have  necessarily  been  delivered  when  the 
invasion  was  only  threatened,  when  there  was  yet  time  for 
making  provision  to  meet  it,  and  when  the  result  of  it,  of 
which  he  speaks,  must  have  been  as  yet  in  futurity  ;  whilst 
events  still  beyond  it,  to  which  his  words  extend  to,  must 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  225 

have  been  in  a  futurity  yet  more  distant ;  i.  e.  Isaiah  must 
have  been  a  prophet.  Certainly  it  is  a  small  matter  of 
fact  which  lays  the  foundation  for  a  great  conclusion :  but 
its  seeming  insignificance  is  just  that  which  gives  it  extra* 
ordinary  value  for  the  purpose  for  which  I  use  it ;  since  it 
is  impossible  to  believe  that  a  forger  of  pretended  prophe- 
cies, written  after  the  event,  would  have  hit  upon  such  an 
expedient  for  stamping  his  imposture  with  a  mark  of  truth, 
as  to  make  the  scene  of  this  prediction  a  conduit  outside  the 
walls,  without  adding  the  most  remote  hint  about  the  in- 
ference he  meant  to  be  drawn  from  it. 


II. 


THERE  is  another  coincidence,  or  at  least  a  probable 
coincidence,  between  a  passage  in  Isaiah  (viii.  2),  and 
other  passages  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  (2  Kings  xvi.  10, 
xviii.  2.)  and  Chronicles,  (2  Chron.  xxix.  1,)  which  goes  to 
determine  that  the  prophet  was  contemporary  with  Ahaz ; 
thus  identifying  the  age  of  Isaiah  and  the  date  of  his  pro- 
phesying, with  a  period  a  hundred  and  forty  years  before 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  of  which  event  nevertheless  he  is 
full  to  overflowing.  The  following  is  the  coincidence  I 
suppose. 

It  appears  to  have  been  an  object  with  this  prophet,  to 
warn  Judah  from  depending  upon  Assyria  for  help  against 
Syria  and  Israel — He  saw  by  the  spirit  more  to  apprehend 
in  the  ally  than  in  the  adversary ;  (opposed  as  this  opinion 
was  to  the  judgment  of  a  generation  who  did  not  allow  for 
the  ambition  of  Assyria,  and  especially  of  Assyria  when 
absorbed  in  the  Babylonish  empire,1  in  its  present  prefer 

»  See  Lightfoot,  Vol.  i.  p.  114,  fol. 


226  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III. 

sion  of  amity  ;  nor  the  approaching  downfall  of  Syria  and 
Israel,  in  their  actual  strength.)  However,  to  impress  this, 
his  prophetical  view  of  things  upon  Ahaz  the  more  effect- 
ually, (the  policy  of  that  monarch  having  been  to  court 
Assyria,1)  he  takes  his  pen,  and  writes  in  a  great  roll,  again 
and  again,  after  the  manner  of  his  age  and  nation,  when 
symbolical  teaching  prevailed,  one  word  of  woe,  Maher- 
shalal-hash-baz — "  hasting  to  the  spoil  he  hasteth  to  the 
prey" — which,  being  interpreted,  spake  of  Assyria,  that  so  it 
should  come  to  pass  touching  the  havoc  about  to  be  wrought 
by  Assyria;  first,  on  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Israel; 
and  eventually,  when  merged  in  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  on 
Judah  itself.  And  to  render  this  act  more  emphatic,  or  to 
impress  it  the  more  memorably  on  the  king,  he  calls  in  two 
witnesses,  Uriah  the  priest,  and  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jeb- 
erechiah,  (Isai.  viii.  2.2) 

Now  who  are  they  ?  Names,  it  may  be  said,  of  unknown 
individuals  perhaps ;  nay  possibly  mere  names  ;  the  whole 
being  a  figure,  and  not  a  fact.  Yet  I  discern,  on  turning 
to  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  second  Book  of  Kings,  that 
one  Uriah,  he  also  a  priest,  was  a  person  with  whom  king 
Ahaz  was  in  close  communication,  using  him  as  a  tool  for 
his  own  unlawful  innovations  in  the  worship  of  his  coun- 
try ;  "  when  he  introduced  into  the  Temple  the  fashion  of 
the  altar  which  he  had  seen  at  Damascus  ;"  in  all  which, 
we  are  told,  "  Uriah  the  priest  did  according  to  all  that 
king  Ahaz  commanded,"  (v.  16.)  If  therefore  this  was  the 
same  Uriah  (for  the  coincidence  turns  on  that)  we  have  one 
witness  taken  from  the  confidential  servants  of  the  king. 
And  with  respect  to  Zechariah,  the  other  witness,  I  learn 
from  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  the  same  Book  of  Kings, 
that  twenty  and  five  years  old  was  Hezekiah  when  he  be- 

»  2  Chron.  xxviii.  16.  3  Lightfoot,  Vol.  i.  p.  101. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTUKEb.  227 

gan  to  reign,  and  that  "  he  reigned  twenty  and  nine  years 
in  Jerusalem,"  and  that  "  his  mother's  name  was  Abi," 
the  daughter  of  Zechariah,  (ver.  2.)  It  should  seem  there- 
fore that  Ahaz,  who  was  father  of  Hezekiah,  was  son-in- 
law  of  one  Zechariah  ;  if  therefore  this  was  the  same  Zech- 
ariah — for  the  coincidence  again  turns  on  that — we  have  a 
second  witness  taken  from  amongst  the  immediate  con- 
nections of  the  king ;  and  it  may  be  added,  that  the  prob- 
ability of  these  parties  mentioned  in  Isaiah  being  the  same 
as  those  of  the  same  names  mentioned  in  the  Book  of 
Kings,  is  increased  by  their  being  two  in  number :  had 
Uriah  alone  been  spoken  of  in  Isaiah,  or  Zechariah  alone, 
and  a  single  person  of  the  same  name  been  met  with  in 
the  Book  of  Kings,  as  about  the  person  of  Ahaz,  the  iden- 
tity of  the  two  might  have  admitted  of  more  dispute  than 
when  Uriah  and  Zechariah  are  both  produced  by  the  pro- 
phet, and  are  both  found  in  the  history.  If  the  names  had 
been  twenty  instead  of  two,  and  all  had  been  found  to 
agree,  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  identity  could  have  been 
entertained. 

Here,  then,  we  can  account  for  the  choice  of  Isaiah,  who 
wished  the  transaction  in  which  he  was  engaged  to  be  en- 
forced upon  the  attention  fcf  Ahaz  with  all  the  advantages 
he  could  command,  and  so  selected  two  of  the  king's  bo- 
som friends  to  testify  concerning  it. 

This,  I  say,  induces  the  belief  that  the  prophet  really 
was  contemporary  with  Ahaz ;  for  how  can  we  suppose, 
that  if  his  pretended  prophecy  had  been  a  forgery  of  after 
times,  so  happy,  because  so  trivial  an  evidence  of  its  genu- 
ineness, should  have  been  introduced,  and  the  names  of  his 
witnesses  have  been  selected,  according  so  singularly  with 
those  of  two  men  certainly  about  the  person  of  Ahaz  whils* 
he  lived?  And  how  difficult  it  is  to  imagine  that  a  forger 
even  admitting  that  he  adopted  those  names  by  a  fortu 


228  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III. 

nate  or  astute  device,  should  have  stopped  where  he  did, 
and  not  have  taken  care  to  make  it  dear  that  by  them  he 
meant  the  Uriah  who  was  the  priest  of  Ahaz,  and  the 
Zechariah  who  was  his  relation,  instead  of  leaving  the 
matter  (as  it  is  left)  open  to  dispute.1 


III. 

THE  next  coincidence  which  I  shall  lay  before  you  is 
one  which  tends  to  establish  two  facts  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance ;  the  one,  that  the  Assyrian  army  under  Sen- 
nacherib perished  in  some  remarkable  manner  j  the  other, 
that  the  Babylonish  Captivity  was  distinctly  foretold,  when 
Babylon  was  as  yet  no  object  of  fear  to  Jerusalem. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  indeed,  the  sudden  destruction 
of  the  Assyrian  host,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  if  such  a 
catastrophe  did  occur,  it  would  be  an  epoch  in  the  times ; 
an  event  that  would  fill  the  whole  East  with  its  strange- 
ness :  and  accordingly,  the  allusions  to  it,  direct  and  in 
direct,  which  are  to  be  met  with  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah, 
are  very  many.  His  mind  seems  much  possessed  by  it ; 
and  this  is  indeed  an  argument  for  the  truth  of  the  fact, 
not  feeble  in  itself — but  the  one  I  have  to  propose  to  you 
is  more  definite  and  precise. 

In  the  thirty-ninth  chapter  of  Isaiah  I  read  as  follows  : 
"At  that  time  Merodach-baladan,  the  son  of  Baladan, 
king  of  Babylon,  sent  letters  and  a  present  to  Hezekiah  ; 
for  he  had  heard  that  he  had  been  sick,  and  was  recovered. 
And  Hezekiah  was  glad  of  them,  and  showed  them  the 

1  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  that  Uriah  (Isaiah  viii.  2)  and  Uri- 
jah  (2  Kings  xvi.  16)  are  the  same  word  in  the  Hebrew. — Dr.  Lightfoo* 
takes  for  granted  that  the  parties  named  in  Isaiah  and  in  Kings  are  thf 
same.  Vol.  i.  p.  101,  foL 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  229 

nouse  of  his  precious  things,  the  silver,  and  the  gold,  and 
the  spices,  and  the  precious  ointment,  and  all  the  house  of 
his  armor,  and  all  that  was  found  in  his  treasures ;  there 
was  nothing  in  his  house,  nor  in  ail  his  dominion,  that 
Hezekiah  showed  them  not.  Then  came  Isaiah  the 
prophet  to  king  Hezekiah,  and  said  unto  him,  What  said 
these  men  ?  and  from  whence  came  they  unto  thee  ?  And 
Hezekiah  said,  They  are  come  from  a.  far  country  unto 
me,  even  from  Babylon.  Then  said  he,  What  have  they 
seen  in  thy  house  ?  And  Hezekiah  answered,  All  that  is 
in  mine  house  have  they  seen  ;  there  is  nothing  among 
my  treasures  that  I  have  not  showed  them.  Then  said 
Isaiah  to  Hezekiah,  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  of  hosts : 
Behold,  the  days  come,  that  all  that  is  in  thine  house,  and 
that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  until  this  day, 
shall  be  carried  to  Babylon :  nothing  shall  be  left,  saith 
the  Lord.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue  from  thee, 
which  thou  shalt  beget,  shall  they  take  away ;  and  they 
shall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  king  of  Babylon." 

1.  Now  the  first  thing  I  would  observe  is  this — that  the 
embassy  from  the  king  of  Babylon  to  Hezekiah  was  to 
congratulate  him  on  his  recovery  from  his  sickness  ;  which 
sickness  must  have  befallen  him  in  the  year  of  Sennach- 
erib's invasion,  and  immediately  previous  to  it — in  that 
year,  because  he  is  said  to  have  reigned  twenty  and  nine 
years  ;!  and  the  invasion  of  Judah  is  said2  to  have  occurred 
in  the  fourteenth  year  of  his  reign  ;  leaving  him  still  fifteen 
years  to  reign,  which  was  precisely  the  period  by  which 
his  life  was  prolonged  beyond  his  sickness  ; — immediately 
previous  to  that  invasion,  because  the  prophet,  in  the 
same  breath  that  he  assures  hina  from  God  of  his  recovery, 
assures  him  also  that  God  would  deliver  the  city  out  of  the 

i  2  Kings  xviii.  2.  2  Ib.  xviii.  13. 

20 


230  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III 

hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  would  defend  the  city 
(Is.  xxxviii,  6,)  as  though  the  danger  was  imminent.1 
The  recovery  therefore  of  Hezekiah,  and  the  destruction 
of  the  Assyrians,  were  events  close  upon  one  another  in 
point  of  time.  And  after  a  short  interval,  allowing  for  the 
news  of  Hezekiah's  recovery  to  reach  Babylon,  and  an 
embassy  to  be  prepared,  that  embassy  of  congratulation 
was  dispatched:  or  in  other  words,  the  embassy  from 
Babylon  must  have  been  close  upon  the  destruction  of  the 
Assyrian  army. 

Now  we  are  told,  that  upon  the  eve  of  the  invasion  of 
Jerusalem  itself,  and  whilst  Sennacherib  was  already  in 
the  country  taking  the  fenced  cities  of  Judah  before  him,2 
Hezekiah  in  his  alarm  endeavored  to  buy  off  the  king  of 
Assyria  :  "  That  which  thou  puttest  on  me,"  said  he, 
"  will  I  bear" — "  And  the  king  of  Assyria  appointed  unto 
Hezekiah  three  hundred  talents  of  silver,  and  thirty  talents 
of  gold," — a  sum  which  completely  exhausted  the  means 
of  Hezekiah  ;  insomuch  that  after  he  had  given  him  all 
the  silver  that  was  found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in 
the  treasures  of  the  king's  house,  he  was  reduced  to  the 
necessity  of  actually  cutting  off  the  gold  from  the  doors  of 
the  temple,  and  from  the  pillars  which  he  had  overlaid,  to 
give  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  Nothing  therefore  could  be 
more  complete  than  the  exhaustion  of  his  resources, 
whether  those  of  the  palace  or  of  the  temple,  immediately 
before  the  advance  of  Sennacherib's  army  on  the  capital — 
for  in  spite  of  this  cowardly  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews,  the  Assyrians  broke  faith  with  them,  and  marched 
on  Jerusalem. 

But  from  the  passage  in  Isaiah,  (ch.  xxxix.,)  which  I 

1  This  clearly  fixes  the  order  of  the  two  events ;  and  shows  that  in  2 
Chron.  xxxii.  21—24,  the  order  is  not  observed, 
a  2  Kings  xviii.  13,  14. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  231 

have  extracted,  where  the  embassy  from  Babylon  is  men- 
tioned, and  the  date  of  which  has  been  already  fixed,  (to 
the  utmost  probability  at  least,)  we  gather  that  Hezekiah 
was  then  in  possession  of  a  treasury  singularly  affluent  ; 
so  much  so  indeed  as  to  lead  him  to  make  a  vainglorious 
display  of  his  vast  magazines  to  these  strangers — "  he  was 
glad  of  them,  and  showed  them  the  house  of  his  precious 
things,  the  silver,  and  the  gold,  and  the  spices,  and  the 
precious  ointments,  and  all  the  house  of  his  armor,  and  all 
that  was  found  in  his  treasures :  there  was  nothing  in  his 
house,  nor  in  all  his  dominion,  that  he  showed  them  not."1 
Here  there  seems  a  strange  and  anaccountable  contra- 
diction to  the  penury  he  had  exhibited  so  shortly  before. 
A  very  brief  interval  had  elapsed  (as  we  have  proved) 
since  he  had  scraped  the  gilding  from  the  very  doors  and 
pillars  to  make  up  a  sum  to  purchase  the  forbearance  of 
the  enemy ;  and  now  his  store  is  become  so  ample  as  to 
betray  him  into  the  vanity  of  exposing  it  before  the  eyes 
of  these  suspicious  strangers.  There  is  no  attempt  made 
to  account  for  the  discrepancy.  A  passage,  however,  of  a 
very  few  lines,  and  very  incindentally  dropping  out  in 
the  thirty-second  chapter  of  the  second  Book  of  Chron- 
icles, (v.  23,  24,)  and  nowhere  else,  supplies  the  explanation 
of  this  extraordinary  and  sudden  mutation.  There,  after 
a  short  account  of  the  discomfiture  of  the  Assyrians  by  the 
angel,  it  is  added,  "  Thus  the  Lord  saved  Hezekiah  and 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  from  the  hand  of  Sennach- 
erib the  king  of  Assyria,  and  from  the  hand  of  all  other, 
and  guided  them  on  every  side.  And  many  brought  gifts 
unto  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem,  and  presents  to  Hezekiah 
king  of  Judah ;  so  that  he  was  magnified  in  the  sight 
of  all  nations  from  thenceforth" 

i  Isaiah  xxxix.  3, 


232  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    III. 

This  fact  clears  up  at  once  the  apparent  contradiction, 
though  certainly  introduced  for  no  such  purpose  ;  no  man 
can  imagine  it ;  indeed,  the  order  of  these  several  events  is 
confounded  in  this  chapter  of  Chronicles,  and  their  mutual 
dependence  (on  which  my  argument  rests)  deranged  ;  so 
free  from  all  suspicion  of  contrivance  is  this  combination 
of  incidents  in  the  narrative. 

For  only  let  us  recapitulate  the  several  particulars  of  the 
argument  From  a  passage  in  the  second  Book  of  Kings, 
(xviii.  13,  14,)  I  learn  that  Hezekiah  spent  his  resources  to 
the  very  last  to  bribe  the  Assyrian  to  forbearance ;  but,  as 
it  proved,  in  vain. 

By  a  comparison  of  a  passage  in  2  Kings  (xviii.  13,  14) 
with  another  in  Isaiah  (zxxviii.  1 — 6),  I  learn  that  the  sick- 
ness of  Hezekiah  was  immediately  before  the  invasion  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  Assyrians. 

By  another  passage  in  Isaiah,  (xxxix.  1,)  I  learn  that  an 
embassage  of  congratulation  was  sent  to  Hezekiah  from 
Babylon,  on  his  recovery  from  his  sickness.  By  the  same, 
that  these  ambassadors  found  him  then  in  possession  of  a 
treasury  full  to  overflowing. 

I  am  at  a  loss  to  account  for  this,  nor  does  the  Scripture 
take  any  pains  to  do  it  for  me  ;  but  I  find,  incidentally,  a 
passage  in  the  second  Book  of  Chronicles,  which  says 
(xxxii.  24,  24)  that  many  had  brought  gifts  to  the  Lord 
at  Jerusalem,  and  presents  to  Hezekiah ;  so  that  he  was 
thenceforth  magnified  in  the  sight  of  all  nations. 

This  explains  the  change  of  circumstances  I  had  ob- 
served for  myself.  The  several  particulars,  therefore,  of 
the  history,  gleaned  from  this  quarter  and  that,  perfectly 
cohere ;  are  evidently  component  parts  of  one  trustworthy 
narrative ;  and  no  reasonable  doubt  will  remain  upon  our 
minds,  that  Hezekiah  was  greatly  straitened  before  the  in* 


PART    III.  PROPHETIC    SCRIPTURES.  233 

vasion,  and  was  suddenly  replenished  after  it ;  but  then 
the  truth  of  these  facts  bears  upon  the  truth  of  the  won- 
derful event  which  is  said  to  have  accompanied  and  ter- 
minated that  invasion  ;  not  indeed  proving  the  truth  of  it, 
but  very  remarkably  agreeing1  with  the  supposition  of  its 
truth.  For  certainly  this  extraordinary  and  voluntary  in- 
flux of  gifts  to  Jerusalem  from  the  nations  round  about, 
sinking  as  Judah  had  long  been  in  its  position  amongst 
those  nations,  indicates  some  strong  re-action  or  other  in 
its  favor  at  that  time ;  as  indeed  does  this  embassage  from 
a.  far  country,  (such  is  the  description  of  it,)  a  country  then 
comparatively  but  little  known.  The  dignity  of  Israel 
seems  to  have  once  more  asserted  itself;  and  though  it  is 
not  to  be  affirmed  as  a  positive  fact,  (at  least  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  Book  of  Kings  or  of  Isaiah,  though  the  Book  of 
Chronicles,  howbeit,  in  other  parts  of  this  transaction  so 
defective,  does  seem  to  imply  it),  that  the  miraculous  de- 
struction of  the  Assyrian  army  was  the  event  which  had 
caused  this  strong  sensation  in  the  countries  round  about ; 
yet  such  an  event,  to  say  the  least,  is  very  consistent  with 
it ;  and  accordingly,  the  passage  of  Chronicles  to  which  I 
refer,  (xxxii.  23,)  tells  us,  that  "  many  brought  gifts  to  the 
Lord  at  Jerusalem,"  as  well  as  "  presents  to  Hezekiah,"  in 
testimony,  it  may  be  presumed,  of  the  work  being  the  Lord's 
doing,  and  not  the  act  of  man ;  i.  e.  that  the  Assyrian  host 
fell  by  an  infliction  from  heaven,  and  not  by  any  ordinary 
defeat ;  and  if  it  should  suggest  itself,  that  a  part  of  these 
treasures  might  have  been  derived  from  the  spoils  of  the 
Assyrian  host,  and  that  the  amount  of  gifts  from  the  sur- 
rounding nations  might  have  been  augmented  by  the  sack- 
ing of  the  tents  of  the  enemy ;  even  as  "  all  the  way  was 
full  of  garments  and  vessels"  (we  are  told  on  another  oc- 
casion of  the  sudden  overthrow  of  an  army  of  a  different 

20* 


234  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    III. 

nation),  "  which  the  Syrians  had  cast  away  in  their  haste ;"' 
the  argument  remains  still  the  same. 

2.  Neither  is  this  all.  Hitherto,  we  have  merely  de- 
rived from  the  coincidence  an  argument  for  the  truth  of  the 
miracle. 

But  it  also  confirms  the  prophecy  touching  the  captivity 
to  Babylon;  and  shows  the  words  to  have  been  spoken 
very  long  before  the  event. 

For  the  aptness  with  which  the  several  independent 
particulars  we  have  collected  fit  into  one  another,  when 
brought  into  juxtaposition,  without  being  packed  for  the 
purpose;  viz.,  the  threat  of  the  Assyrian  invasion;  the 
impoverishment  of  the  exchequer  of  Hezekiah  to  avert  it ; 
the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian  host ;  the  influx  of  treasure 
to  Jerusalem  from  foreign  nations,  or  from  the  enemy's 
camp  ;  the  recovery  of  Hezekiah ;  the  arrival  of  the  em- 
bassage  of  congratulation  from  Babylon;  the  wealth  he 
now  exhibits  to  that  embassage,  even  to  ostentation  ; — the 
karmony,  I  say,  with  which  these  several  incidents  concur, 
both  in  details  and  dates,  is  such  as  could  only  result  from 
the  truth  of  the  whole  and  of  its  parts.  If  wre  take,  there- 
fore, this  fact  as  a  basis,  as  a  fact  established,  for  so  I  re- 
gard it,  that  at  that  time  Merodach-baladan,  the  son  of  Ba- 
ladan,  sent  letters  and  a  present  to  Hezekiah ;  for  he  had 
heard  that  he  had  been  sick  and  was  recovered  ;  and  that 
Hezekiah  showed  the  messengers  all  that  was  found  in  his 
treasures,  &c.,  the  warning  of  Isaiah,  to  which  Hezekiah's 
vanity  gives  occasion,  rises  so  naturally  out  of  the  premises, 
is  so  entirely  founded  upon  them,  and  so  intimately  com- 
bined with  them,  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  not  to  accept 
it  as  a  fact  too.  The  folly  of  the  king,  and  the  reproof  of 
the  prophet,  must  stand  or  fall  together :  the  one  prompts 

i  2  Kings  vii.  16. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  235 

the  other  ;  the  truth  of  the  one  sustains  the  truth  of  the 
other  ;  the  date  of  the  one  fixes  the  date  of  the  other.  But 
this  warning,  this  reproof  of  Isaiah,  and  this  confession  of 
the  king,  runs  thus: — "What  said  these  men?  and  from 
whence  came  they  unto  thee?"  To  which  Hezekiah 
made  answer,  "  They  are  come  from  a  far  country  unto 
me,  even  from  Babylon."  Then  said  Isaiah,  "What  have 
they  seen  in  thine  house?"  And  Hezekiah  answered, 
"  All  that  is  in  mine  house  have  they  seen  ;  there  is  noth- 
ing among  my  treasures  that  I  have  not  showed  them." 
Then  said  Isaiah  to  Hezekiah,  "  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord 
of  hosts  :  Behold,  the  days  come,  that  all  that  is  in  thine 
house,  and  that  which  thy  fathers  have  laid  up  in  store 
until  this  day,  shall  be  carried  to  Babylon,  and  nothing 
shall  be  left,  saith  the  Lord."1 

Thus  the  period  of  Hezekiah's  display  of  his  finances 
being  determined  to  a  period  soon  after  the  doVnfall  of  the 
Assyrians,  this  rebuke  of  the  prophet  which  springs  out  of 
it  is  determined  to  the  same.  Then  the  rebuke  was  a 
prophecy ;  for  as  yet  it  remained  for  Esar-haddon,  the  son 
of  Sennacherib,  to  ginnex  Babylon  to  Assyria  by  conquest 
— it  remained  for  the  two  kingdoms  to  continue  united  for 
two  generations  more — it  remained  for  Nabopolassar,  the 
satrap  of  Babylon,  to  revolt  from  Assyria,  and  set  up  that 
kingdom  for  itself — and  it  remained  for  Nebuchadnezzar 
his  son  to  succeed  him,  and  by  carrying  away  the  Jews  to 
Babylon,  accomplish  the  words  of  Isaiah.  But  this  inter- 
val occupied  a  hundred  years  and  upwards  ;  and  so  far, 
therefore,  must  the  spirit  of  prophecy  have  carried  him  for- 
ward into  futurity ;  and  that  too,  contrary  to  all  present 
appearances ;  for  Babylon  was  as  yet  but  a  name  to  the 
people  of  Jerusalem — it  was  a  far  country,  and  was  to  be 

1  Isaiah,  xxxix. 


236  THE    VERACITY    CF    THE  PART    III. 

swallowed  up  in  the  great  Assyrian  empire,  and  recover 
its  independence  once  more,  before  it  could  be  brought  to 
act  against  Judah. 

The  only  objection  to  this  argument  which  I  can  im- 
agine is,  that  the  prophetical  part  of  the  passage  might 
have  been  grafted  upon  the  historical  part  by  a  later  hand  ; 
but  the  seaming,  I  think,  must  in  that  case  have  appeared. 
Whereas  the  prophecy  is  in  the  form  of  a  rebuke ;  the  re- 
buke inseparably  connected  with  Hezekiah's  vainglorious 
display  of  his  treasures — his  possession  of  those  treasures 
to  display,  at  the  peculiar  crisis  when  the  embassy  arrived, 
though  shortly  before  his  poverty  was  excessive,  confirmed 
as  a  matter  of  fact  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  by  an  un- 
designed coincidence.  The  premises  then  being  thus  es- 
tablished in  truth,  and  the  consequences  flowing  from  them 
being  so  close  and  so  natural,  it  is  less  easy  to  suppose  them 
fictitious  tha*n  prophetical. 


IV. 

* 

THERE  is  another  ingredient  in  the  details  of  this  in- 
vasion of  Sennacherib  which  when  compared  with  a  pas- 
sage in  Isaiah,  furnishes,  I  think,  a  probable  coincidence ; 
and  tends  to  hem  round  the  wonderful  event  which  is  said 
to  have  attended  that  invasion,  with  still  more  evidence  of 
truth. 

When  the  king  of  Assyria  sent  his  host  against  Jeru- 
salem on  this  occasion,  the  persons  deputed  by  Hezekiah 
to  confer  with  his  captains,  were,  we  read,  "  Eliakim  the 
son  of  Hilkiah,  which  was  over  his  household,  and  Shebna 
the  scribe,  and  Joah  the  son  of  Asaph  the  recorder."1 

2  Kings  xviii.  18. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  237 

Their  names  occur  more  than  once,1  and  still  with  this 
distinction,  namely,  that  the  parentage  of  Eliakim  and  of 
Joah  is  given,  but  not  that  of  Shebna :  of  the  two  former  it 
is  told  whose  sons  they  were,  as  well  as  what  offices  they 
held  ;  whilst  Shebna  is  designated  by  his  office  only. 

Now  is  there  a  reason  for  this,  or  is  it  merely  the  effect 
of  accident  ?  The  omission  certainly  may  be  accidental, 
but  I  will  suggest  a  ground  for  thinking  it  not  so,  and  will 
leave  my  readers  to  be  the  judges  of  the  matter. 

In  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  Isaiah  (v.  15  et  seq.) 
we  find  the  prophet  delivering  a  message  of  wrath  against 
one  Shebna,  in  the  following  terms :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
God  of  hosts,  Go,  get  thee  unto  this  treasurer,  even  unto 
Shebna,  which  is  over  the  house,  and  say,  What  hast 
thou  here  ?  and  whom  hast  thou  here,  that  thou  hast 
hewed  thee  out  a  sepulchre  here,  as  he  that  heweth  him 
out  a  sepulchre  on  high,  and  that  grave th  an  habitation 
for  himself  in  a  rock  ?  Behold,  the  Lord  will  carry  thee 
away  with  a  mighty  captivity,  and  will  surely  cover  thee. 
He  will  surely  violently  turn  and  toss  thee  like  a  ball  into 
a  large  country :  there  shalt  thou  die,  and  there  the  chari- 
ots of  thy  glory  shall  be  the  shame  of  thy  Lord's  house. 
And  I  will  drive  thee  from  thy  station,  and  from  thy  state 
shall  he  pull  thee  down."  The  purport  of  which  rebuke 
is,  that  whereas  Shebna  was  busily  engaged  in  construct- 
ing for  himself  a  sumptuous  sepulchre  at  Jerusalem,  as 
though  he  and  his  posterity  were  to  have  that  for  their 
burial-place  forever,  he  might  spare  himself  the  pains,  for 
that  God,  for  some  transgression  of  his  which  is  not  men- 
tioned, was  about  to  depose  him  from  the  post  of  honor 
which  he  held,  and  banish  him  from  his  city,  and  leave 
him  to  die  in  a  strange  land. 

1  1  Kings  xix.  2;  Isaiah  zxxvi.  3. 


238        .  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART.    III. 

It  is  true  that  Shebna  is  here  called  the  "  treasurer," 
whereas  the  Shebna  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Kings,  with 
whom  the  coincidence  requires  that  he  should  be  identified, 
is  called  "  the  scribe,"  but  the  two  periods  are  not  neces- 
sarily the  same,  and  he  might  have  been  "  the  treasurer," 
at  the  one,  and  "  the  scribe,"  at  the  other  ;  for  that  he  is 
the  same  man  I  can  have  no  doubt,  not  merely  from  Shebna 
in  either  case  belonging  clearly  to  the  king's  court,  which 
greatly  limits  the  conditions  ;  but  from  Eliakim  the  son  of 
Hilkiah  being  again  spoken  of  immediately  in  connection 
with  him  in  the  passage  of  Isaiah  (ver.  20),  as  he  had  been 
in  the  passage  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  It  being  presumed, 
then,  that  the  Shebna  of  Isaiah  and  the  Shebna  of  the 
Book  of  Kings  is  the  same  person,  I  account  for  the  omis- 
sion of  his  parentage  in  the  history  from  the  circumstance 
of  his  being  a  foreigner  at  Jerusalem,  whilst  Eliakim  and 
Joah  were  native  Jews  whose  genealogy  was  known  ;  and 
this  fact  I  conclude  from  the  expression  in  Isaiah  which  I 
have  printed  in  Italics,  "  What  hast  thou  here,  and  whom 
hast  thou  here,  that  thou  hast  hewed  thee  out  a  sepulchre 
here  ?"  Jerusalem  not  having  been  the  burial-place  of  his 
family,  because  he  did  not  belong  to  Jerusalem. 


V. 


IN  the  sixty-second  chapter  of  this  same  prophet  Isaiah, 
reference  is  made  to  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jewish 
Church  ;  in  the  first  sense,  perhaps,  and  as  a  frame- work 
of  more,  its  restoration  from  Babylon ;  in  a  second,  its 
eventual  restoration  to  Christ,  and  the  coming  in  of  the 
Jew  and  Gentile  together.  "  And  thou  shalt  no  more  be 
termed  Forsaken" — so  Isaiah  here  expresses  himself  con- 
cerning Jerusalem, — "  neither  shaL  thy  land  any  more  be 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  239 

termed  Desolate  ;  but  thou  shall  be  called  Hephzi-bah, 
and  thy  land  Beulah :  for  the  Lord  delighteth  in  thee ; 
and  thy  land  shall  be  married."  (ver.  4.) 

The  figure  here  employed  is  that  of  a  marriage  ;  there 
is  to  be  a  marriage  between  God  and  his  Church  :  that  di- 
vorce from  God,  which  the  sins  of  Jerusalem  had  effected, 
was  to  be  done  away,  and  the  nuptial  bond  be  renewed. 
Jerusalem  was  to  be  no  longer  as  a  widow,  Forsaken  and 
Desolate,  but  to  be  as  a  bride,  and  to  be  called  Heph- 
zi-bah,  i.  e.  "  in  her  is  my  delight,"  and  "  Beulah"  i.  e. 
married.  The  verse  immediately  following  the  one  I  have 
produced,  still  continues  the  same  figure :  "  For  as  a  young 
man  marrieth  a  virgin,  so  shall  thy  sons  marry  (or  again 
live  with)  thee  ;  and  as  the  bridegroom  rejoiceth  over  his 
bride,  so  shall  thy  God  rejoice  over  thee"  (ver.  5).  Now 
it  is  impossible  to  read  the  prophets  with  the  least  atten- 
tion, and  not  discover  that  the  incidents  upon  which  they 
raise  their  oracular  superstructure  are  in  general  real  mat- 
ters of  fact  which  have  fallen  in  their  way.  When  they 
soar  even  into  their  sublimest  flights,  they  often  take  their 
spring  from  some  solid  and  substantial  footing.  Our  Lord 
was  acting  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the  older  prophets  when 
he  advanced  from  his  observations  on  the  temple  before 
him,  and  the  desolation  it  was  soon  to  suffer,  to  the  final 
consummation  of  all  things,  and  the  breaking  up  of  the 
universal  visible  world ;  and  the  commentary  of  those  who 
would  endeavor  to  construe  the  whole  by  a  reference  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  only,  is  not  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  the  prophets  of  ancient  times. 

From  the  passage  before  us,  then,  it  should  seem  that 
some  nuptial  ceremony  was  the  accident  of  the  day  which 
gave  the  prophet  an  opportunity  of  uttering  his  parable 
concerning  the  future  fortune  of  Jerusalem.  Can  we  trace 
any  such  event  in  the  history  of  those  days  likely  from  its 


240  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III. 

importance  to  arrest  public  attention,  and  thus  to  furnish 
Isaiah  with  this  figure  ?  I  do  not  say  positively  that  we 
can — nevertheless  the  name  of  Hephzi-bah,  which  he 
assigns  'to  this  his  new  Jerusalem,  may  throw  some  light 
upon  our  inquiry ;  for  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  the 
second  Book  of  Kings  I  read  that  "  Manasseh  "  (the  son 
of  Hezekiah)  "  was  twelve  years  old  when  he  began  to 
reign,  and  that  he  reigned  fifty  and  five  years  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  that  his  mother's  name  was  Hephzi-bah"1 
It  is  not  improbable,  therefore,  that  the  royal  nuptials  of 
Hezekiah  occurred  about  the  time  of  this  prophecy  ;  and 
that  Isaiah,  after  the  manner  of  the  prophets  in  general, 
availed  himself  of  the  passing  event,  and  of  the  name  of 
the  bride,  as  a  vehicle  for  the  tidings  which  he  had  to 
communicate.  This  too  may  seem  the  more  likely,  be- 
cause this  prophecy  of  Isaiah  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
spoken  at  an  early  period  of  his  mission,  but  subsequently 
to  the  sickness  and  recovery  of  Hezekiah,  (if  the  prophecies 
at  least  are  arranged  at  all  in  the  order  in  which  they 
were  delivered  ;)  neither  is  it  probable  that  the  marriage  of 
Hezekiah  was  contracted  till  after  that  same  sickness  and 
recovery,  seeing  that  his  son  and  successor  was  but  twelve 
years  old  at  his  father's  death,  which  happened,  we  know, 
fifteen  years  after  his  illness. 


VI. 

BUT  it  is  not  by  single  and  separate  coincidences  only 
that  the  authority  of  these  prophecies  is  upheld  :  there  are 
some  coincidences  of  a  more  comprehensive  and  general 
kind  that  argue  the  same  truth.  Thus,  the  scenes  amongst 

*  2  Kings  xxi.  1. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  241 

which  Isaiah  seems  to  write,  indicate  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel  to  be  yet  standing.  He  remonstrates,  in  the 
name  of  God,  with  the  people  for  a  hypocritical  obser- 
vance of  the  Fast-days  (ch.  Iviii.  3) ;  for  exacting  usurious 
profits  nevertheless  ;  for  prolonging  unlawfully  the  years 
of  bondage  (v.  6)  ;  for  profankig  the  Sabbaths  (v.  13) ; 
for  confounding  all  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean 
meats  (ch.  Ixv.  4 ;  Ixvi.  17.)  He  makes  perpetual  allu- 
sions, too,  to  the  existence  of  false  prophets  in  Jerusalem, 
as  though  this  class  of  persons  was  very  common  whilst 
Isaiah  was  writing ;  the  most  likely  persons  in  the  world 
to  be  engendered  by  troubled  times.  And  above  all,  he 
reviles  the  people  for  their  gross  and  universal  idolatry  ;  a 
sin,  which  m  all  its  aspects,  is  pursued  from  the  fortieth 
chapter  to  the  last  with  a  ceaseless,  inextinguishable,  un- 
mitigated storm  of  mockery,  contempt  and  scorn.  With 
what  position  of  the  prophet  can  these,  and  many  similar 
allusions,  be  reconciled,  but  with  that  of  a  man  dwelling 
in  Judea  before  the  captivity,  during  a  period,  which,  as 
historically  described  in  the  latter  chapters  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  presents  the  express  counterpart  of 
those  references  in  the  prophet  ?  Hezekiah  and  Josiah, 
the  two  redeeming  princes  of  that  time,  serving,  as  break- 
ers, to  make  manifest  the  fury  with  which  the  tide  of 
abominations  of  every  kind  was  running.  I  say,  to  what 
other  period,  and  to  what  other  position  of  the  writer,  does 
the  internal  evidence  of  Isaiah  point?  indirectly  indeed, 
but  not  on  that  account,  in  a  manner  the  less  conclusive. 
Had  he  taken  up  his  parable  during  the  Babylonish  bon- 
dage, would  there  not  have  been  frequent  and  inadvertent 
allusions  to  the  circumstances  of  Babylon  ?  Could  his 
style  have  escaped  the  contagious  influence  of  the  scenes 
around  him?  even  as  the  case  actually  is  with  Daniel, 
whose  dwelling  was  at  Babylon.  Yet  in  Isaiah  there  are 

21 


242  THE    VERACITY    OP   THE  PART  III. 

no  allusions  of  this  nature.  It  is  of  Jerusalem,  and  not  of 
Babylon,  that  his  roll  savors  throughout ;  of  the  land  of 
Israel,  and  not  of  Chaldea.  Moreover,  it  is  of  Jerusalem 
hefore  the  captivity ;  for  after  that  trying  furnace  through 
which  the  Jewish  nation  was  condemned  to  pass,  it  was 
disinfected  of  idolatry.  Nay,  a  horror  of  idolatry  suc- 
ceeded, great  as  had  been  the  propensity  to  it  aforetime  ; 
the  whole  nation  baring  their  necks  to  the  sword,  rather 
than  admit  within  their  walls  even  a  Roman  Eagle : 
whilst  the  ritual  observances  of  the  law,  so  far  from  falling 
into  desuetude  and  contempt,  were  now  kept  with  even  a 
superstitious  scrupulosity. 

I  think  then  that  the  several  undesigned  coincidences 
between  passages  in  Isaiah,  and  others  in  the  Books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  which  have  been  now  adduced, 
enough  to  prove  that  the  prophet  was  contemporary  with 
Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  and  saw  his  vision 
in  their  days,  even  as  its  title  declares.  The  mere  intro- 
duction of  the  names  of  these  princes  into  the  pages  of 
Isaiah,  is  not  the  argument  on  which  I  rely.  It  might  be 
said,  however  improbably,  that  an  author  of  a  date  much 
lower,  might  have  admitted  these  names,  and  fragments 
of  history  connected  with  them,  into  his  rhapsody,  in  order 
to  give  it  a  coloring  of  fact — but  it  is  the  indirect  coin- 
cidences between  the  prophet  and  the  history,  which  veri- 
fies the  date  of  the  former — allusions,  mere  allusions,  to 
obscure  servants  of  these  sovereigns  (known  to  be  such) ; 
to  a  marriage  of  the  day ;  to  the  stopping  of  a  well ;  to 
the  foolish  exhibition  of  a  treasure — allusions,  indeed,  in 
some  cases  so  indistinct,  that  the  full  drift  of  the  prophet 
would  have  escaped  us,  but  for  the  historian.  Such  an  ar- 
gument ought  to  satisfy  us  that  Isaiah  was  as  surely 
alive,  and  dead,  long  before  the  Babylonish  captivity,  which 
he  so  accurately  foretold,  even  to  the  deliverance  from  it — 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  243 

a  still  further  reach  into  futurity — as  that  Ahaz  and  Heze- 
kiah  lived  and  died  long  before  it ;  an  argument  therefore, 
which  justifies  the  Jews  in  their  enrolment  of  his  name 
amongst  the  most  distinguished  of  their  prophets,  though 
they  had  no  other  ground  for  so  doing  than  their  knowl- 
edge of  his  exact  prediction  of  the  events  of  those  days  ; 
and  which  must  leave  us  without  excuse  in  our  incredulity, 
born  as  we  are  after  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  which 
forms  so  principal  a  subject  of  Isaiah's  writings  besides  ; 
and  whose  character  and  Gospel  we  have  found  to  corres- 
pond in  so  remarkable  a  manner  to  the  description  of  both 
which  they  contain.  For  it  is  not  the  least  singular,  or 
the  least  satisfactory  feature  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah,  that 
they  should  thus  relate  to  two  distinct  periods,  separated 
by  a  wide  interval  of  time,  and  be  found  to  be. so  exact  in 
both  ;  that  they  should  have  first  taken  for  their  field  the 
events  preceding  and  accompanying  the  captivity,  foretell- 
ing them  so  faithfully  as  to  convince  the  Jew  that  he  was 
one  of  the  greatest  of  his  prophets :  that  some  hundreds 
of  years  should  then  be  allowed  to  elapse,  of  which  they 
are  silent ;  and  that  then  they  should  break  out  again  on 
the  subject  of  a  second  and  altogether  different  series  of  in- 
cidents, so  deeply  interesting  to  the  Christian,  and  be  found 
by  him,  in  his  turn,  to  be  so  wonderfully  true  to  them — so 
wonderfully  true  to  them,  that  he  cannot  but  be  surprised 
that  the  Jew  whose  acceptance  of  the  prophet  was  even 
already  secured  by  the  previous  stage  of  his  prophecy,  of 
which  we  have  been  now  examining  the  evidence,  should 
still  be  unable  to  see  in  him  the  prophet  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Nazareth  too. 


244  THE    VERACITY   OP   THE  PART    III 

VII. 

WE  next  come  to  the  writings  of  Jeremiah,  which  do 
not  however  supply  many  arguments  of  the  kind  I  am 
collecting,  nor  perhaps  any  so  persuasive  in  their  character 
as  some  which  I  have  produced  from  Isaiah.  Still  there 
are  several  which  at  least  deserve  to  be  brought  before 
you. 

In  the  midst  of  a  denunciation  of  evils  to  come  upon 
Jerusalem  for  her  wickedness,  which  we  find  in  the  thir- 
teenth chapter  of  Jeremiah  ;  a  denunciation  for  the  most 
part  expressed  in  general  terms,  and  in  a  manner  not  con- 
veying any  very  exact  allusions,  we  read  at  the  eighteenth 
verse,  "  Say  unto  the  King  and  to  the  Queen,  Humble 
yourselves:  sit  down,  for  your  principalities  shall  come 
down,  even  the  crown  of  your  glory."  Jeremiah  does  not 
here  tell  us  the  name  either  of  the  king  or  the  queen  re- 
ferred to — but  as  the  queens  of  Israel  do  not  figure  prom- 
inently in  the  history  of  that  nation,  except  where  there  is 
something  peculiar  in  their  characters  or  condition  to  bring 
them  out,  it  may  be  thought  there  was  something  of  the 
kind  in  this  instance :  and  accordingly  we  have  mention 
made  in  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  the  second  Book  of 
Kings  of  an  invasion  of  the  Chaldeans,  attended  by  cir- 
cumstances corresponding  to  what  we  might  expect  from 
this  exclamation  of  Jeremiah.  It  was  the  second  of  the 
three  invasions  which  occurred  at  that  time  within  a  few 
years  of  one  another,  to  which  I  allude  ; l  an  invasion  made 
by  the  servants  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  followed  by  Nebuch- 
adnezzar himself  in  person.  On  this  occasion  it  is  said, 
that  "  Jehoiachin  the  king  of  Judah  went  out  to  the  king 

i  2Kingsxxiv.  1,  10;  XXT.  1. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  246 

of  Babylon,  he,  and  his  mother ',  and  his  servants,  and  his 
princes,  and  his  officers  :  and  the  king  of  Babylon  took 
him  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign,"  (ver.  12  :)  and  again, 
"  and  he  carried  away  Jehoiachin  to  Babylon,  and  the 
king's  mother,  and  the  king's  wives,  and  his  officers,  and 
the  mighty  of  the  land,  those  carried  he  into  captivity  from 
Jerusalem  to  Babylon."  (ver.  15.) 

As  Jehoiachin  was  at  that  time  only  eighteen  years  old, 
and  had  reigned  no  more  than  three  months,  (ver.  8,)  the 
queen  dowager  was  no  doubt  still  a  person  of  consequence, 
possibly  his  adviser,  at  any  rate  an  influential  person  as 
yet,  so  short  a  period  having  elapsed  since  the  death  of 
her  husband  the  last  king :  and  thus  an  object  of  pity  to 
the  prophet,  and  one  that  called  for  express  notice  and 
remark. 


VIII. 

JEREMIAH  xxii.  10 — 12,  furnishes  us  with  another  in- 
stance of  coincidence  without  design,  calculated  to  establish 
our  belief  in  that  prophet.  We  there  read,  "  Weep  not  for 
the  dead,  neither  bemoan  him  :  but  weep  for  him  that 
goeth  away  ;  for  he  shall  return  no  more,  nor  see  his 
native  country.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  touching  Shallum 
the  son  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  which  reigned  instead 
of  Josiah  his  father,  which  went  forth  out  of  this  place ; 
He  shall  not  return  thither  any  more  :  but  he  shall  die  in 
the  place  whither  they  have  led  him  captive,  and  shall  see 
this  land  no  more." 

Now  this  passage  evidently  relates  to  several  events 
familiar  to  the  minds  of  those  whom  the  prophet  was  ad- 
dressing. It  is  a  series  of  allusions  to  circumstances  known 
to  them,  but  by  no  means  sufficiently  developed  to  put  us 


246 


THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    III. 


in  possession  of  the  tale  without  some  further  key.  It 
should  appear  that  there  had  been  a  great  public  mourn- 
ing in  Jerusalem  :  but  it  is  not  distinctly  said  for  whom  ; 
it  might  be  supposed  for  Josiah,  whose  name  occurs  in 
the  paragraph  ; — that  another  calamity  had  come  upon 
its  heels  very  shortly  afterwards,  calling,  as  the  prophet 
thought,  for  expressions  of  national  sorrow  which  might 
even  supersede  the  other  ;  a  prince,  the  son  of  Josiah,  led 
away  captive  into  a  foreign  land  ;  but  whither  he  was  thus 
led,  or  by  whom,  is  not  declared.  The  whole  evidently 
the  discourse  of  a  man  living  amongst  the  scenes  he  touches 
upon,  amd  conscious  that  he  has  no  need  to  do  more  than 
touch  upon  them  to  make  himself  understood  by  his 
hearers. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  thirty-fifth  and  thirty-sixth  chap- 
ters of  the  second  Book  of  Chronicles,  where  certain  histor- 
ical details  of  the  events  of  those  times  are  preserved,  and 
the  key  will  be  supplied.  In  the  former  chapter  I  find  that 
the  death  of  Josiah,  a  king  who  had  been  a  blessing  to  his 
kingdom,  and  who  was  slain  by  an  arrow,  as  he  fought 
against  the  Egyptians,  was  in  fact  an  event  that  filled  all 
Jerusalem  with  consternation  and  grief:  "  he  died,  and  was 
buried  in  one  of  the  sepulchres  of  his  fathers.  And  all  Ju- 
dah  and  Jerusalem  mourned  for  Josiah.  And  Jeremiah  la- 
mented for  Josiah  :  and  all  the  singing  men  and  the  sing- 
ing women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamentations  unto  this 
day,  and  made  them  an  ordinance  in  Israel :  and,  behold, 
they  are  written  in  the  Lamentations."1  Here  we  hav7e  the 
first  feature  in  Jeremiah's  very  transient  sketch  completed. 

I  look  at  the  continuation  of  the  history  in  the  next 
chapter,  and  I  there  find  that  the  son  of  Josiah,  Jehoahaz 
by  name,  (and  not  called  Shallum  in  the  Chronicles,)  "  be- 

">  2  Chron.  xxv.  24,  25. 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  247 

gan  to  reign,  and  that  he  reigned  three  months  in  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and  the  king  of  Egypt  put  him  down  at  Jerusalem, 
and  condemned  the  land  in  a  hundred  talents  of  silver  and 
a  talent  of  gold.     And  the  king  of  Egypt  made  Eliakim 
his  brother  king  over  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and  turned  his 
name  to  Jehoiakim.   And  Necho  took  Jehoahazhis  brother, 
and  carried  him  to  Egypt"     Here  we  have  the  other  out- 
lines of  Jeremiah's  picture  filled  up.     The  second  calamity 
did  come,  it  appears,  on  the  heels  of  the  first,  for  it  was  only 
after  an  interval  of  three  months.     The  king  of  Egypt,  we 
now  find,  was  the  conqueror  who  carried  the  prince  away, 
and  Egypt  was  the  country  to  which  he  was  conducted. 
And  though  the  victim  is  called  Jehoahaz  in  the  history, 
and  Shallum  in  the  prophet,  the  facts  concerning  him  tally 
so  exactly,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  identity  of 
the  man  ;  whilst  the  absence  of  all  attempt  on  either  side 
to  explain  or  reconcile  this  difficulty  about  the  name,  is  a 
clear  proof  that  neither  passage  was  written  in  reference  to 
the  other :  though  it  may  be  conjectured,  that  as  Necho 
gave  a  new  name  to  Eliakim,1  the  one  brother,  so  he  might 
have  done  the  like  by  the  other,  and  called  him  Shallum 
instead  of  Jehoahaz. 

But  there  is  a  further  hint.  "  Weep  not,"  says  Jere- 
miah, "  for  the  dead  ;  but  weep  for  him  that  goeth  away, 
for  he  shall  return  no  more."  This  should  imply  that  the 
prince  of  whom  Jerusalem  was  thus  bereft,  was  acceptable 
to  his  people  ;  more  acceptable  than  he  who  was  to  supply 
his  place.  The  thing  to  be  lamented  was  that  he  would 
return  no  more.  It  is  true  that  for  the  little  time  Jehoahaz 
reigned,  he  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  :2  but  so  did 
Jehoiakim  ;3  so  that  in  this  respect  there  was  nothing  to 
choose ;  and  in  the  condition  of  the  Jews  at  that  time,  an 

i  2  Kings  xxiii.  34.  «  Ib.  xxiii.  32.         3  3  Chron.  xxxvi.  5. 

21* 


248  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III; 

irreligious  prince  (for  that  would  be  the  meaning  of  the 
term)  would  not  necessarily  be  an  unpopular  one.  I  repeat, 
therefore,  that  the  words  of  Jeremiah  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  prince  who  had  been  carried  away  was  more  accepta- 
ble than  the  one  who  was  left  in  his  stead.  I  now  turn, 
once  again,  to  the  thirty-sixth  chapter  of  the  second  Book 
of  Chronicles,  (v. '!,)  or  to  the  twenty-third  chapter  of  the 
second  Book  of  Kings,  (v.  30,)  and  I  there  discover  (for  the 
incident  is  not  obvious)  a  particular  with  regard  to  this  prince 
who  was  carried  away  captive  by  Necho,  and  to  his  brother 
who  was  appointed  to  reign  in  his  stead,  very  remarka- 
bly coinciding  with  these  innuendoes  of  Jeremiah.  For 
in  the  former  reference  it  is  said,  that  on  the  death  of  Jo- 
siah,  "  the  people  of  the  land  took  Jehoahaz^  (the  Shallum 
of  the  prophet)  "  the  son  of  Josiah,  and  made  him  king  in 
his  father's  stead  at  Jerusalem  :  and  Jehoahaz,"  it  contin^ 
ues,  "  was  twenty  and  three  years  old  when  he  began  to 
reign."  Then  comes  the  history  of  his  deposal,  abduction, 
and  of  the  substitution  of  his  brother  Eliakim  to  reign  in 
Jerusalem  in  his  place,  under  the  name  of  Jehoiakirn  :  "  and 
Jehoiakim,"  it  is  added,  "  was  twenty  and  five  years  old 
when  he  began  to  reign."  Now  inasmuch  as  Jehoahaz 
had  reigned  only  three  months,  Jehoahaz  must  have  been 
younger  than  Jehoiakim  by  nearly  two  years  :  thow  then 
came  the  younger  son  to  succeed  his  father  on  the  throne 
in  the  first  instance  ?  "  The  people  of  the  land  took  him" 
we  have  read ;  i.  e.  he  was  the  more  popular  character,  and 
therefore  they  set  him  on  the  throne  in  spite  of  the  supe- 
rior claims  of  the  first-born.  And  a  phrase  which  occurs  in 
the  latter  of  the  two  references  confirms  this  view  ;  for  the 
people  are  there  said  not  only  to  have  taken  him,  but  to 
have  "  anointed  him" — a  ceremonial,  which,  whether  inva- 
riably observed  or  not  in  cases  of  ordinary  descent  of  the 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  249 

crown,  never  seems  to  have  been  omitted  in  cases  of  doubt- 
ful succession.1 

This  history,  it  will  be  seen,  supplies  with  great  success 
the  particulars  which  are  incidentally  omitted  in  the  pro- 
phecy, though  clearly  constructed  with  no  such  intention  ; 
and  fixes  the  date  of  Jeremiah  to  a  period  long  before  sev- 
eral of  the  events  which  he  foretells. 


IX. 

OF  Hosea,  we  read  that  he  prophesied  "  in  the  days 
of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Ju- 
dah."  (i.  1.) 

In  the  course  of  this  prophecy  we  find  frequent  inciden- 
tal allusions  to  a  scarcity  of  food  in  the  land  of  Israel. 

u  Therefore  will  I  return,  and  take  away  my  corn  in  the 
time  thereof,  and  my  wine  in  the  season  thereof,"  (ii.  9.)  "  I 
will  destroy  her  vines  and  her  fig-trees,"  (11.)  "Therefore 
shall  the  land  mourn,  and  every  one  that  dwelleth  therein 
shall  languish,  with  the  blasts  of  the  field,  and  with  the 
fowls  of  heaven ;  yea,  the  fishes  of  the  sea  also  shall  be 
taken  away,"  (iv.  3.)  "  They  have  not  cried  unto  me  with 
their  heart,  when  they  howled  upon  their  beds :  they  as- 
sembled themselves  for  corn  and  wine,  and  they  rebel 
against  me,"  (vii.  14.)  "  They  have  sown  the  wind,  and 
they  shall  reap  the  whirlwind  :  it  hath  no  stalk  :  the  bud 
shall  yield  no  meal,"  (viii.  7.)  "  The  floor  and  the  wine- 
press shall  not  feed  them,  and  the  new  wine  shall  fail 
them."  (ix.  2.) 

Again,  Amos  is  said  to  have  prophesied  concerning  Israel 
"  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  and  in  the  days 
of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Joash,  king  of  Israel,"  (i.  1 .) 

i  See  2  Kings  ix.  3,  and  Patrick  in  loc.  and  also  on  2  Kings  xxiii.  30. 


250  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    III. 

In  this  prophet  also,  in  like  manner,  as  in  the  former, 
we  find  incidental  allusions  to  dearth  in  the  land.  "  The 
habitations  of  the  shepherds  shall  mourn,  and  the  top  of 
Carmel  shall  wither,"  (i.  2.)  "  I  also  have  given  you  clean- 
ness of  teeth  in  all  your  cities,  and  want  of  bread  in  all 
your  places,  yet  have  ye  not  returned  unto  me,  saith  the 
Lord.  And  also  I  have  withholden  the  rain  from  you, 
when  there  were  yet  three  months  to  the  harvest ...  So 
two  or  three  cities  wandered  unto  one  city,  to  drink  water; 
but  they  were  not  satisfied ...  I  have  smitten  you  with 
blasting  and  mildew :  when  )rour  gardens,  and  your  vine- 
yards, and  your  fig-trees,  and  your  olive-trees  increased,  the 
palmerworm  devoured  them . . .  they  shall  call  the  husband- 
man to  the  mourning . . .  And  in  all  vineyards  shall  be  wail- 
ing." (iv.  6,  7,  8,  9 ;  v.  16.  17.)— With  more  to  the  same 
effect  in  both  these  prophets. 

Now,  if  we  turn  to  2  Chron.  xxvi.  10,  where  we  have  a 
brief  history  of  the  reign  of  this  same  king  Uzziah,  under 
whom  we  have  seen  they  lived,  we  shall  find  a  feature  of 
it  recorded,  which  seems  to  tally  extremely  well  with  this 
representation  of  the  condition  of  Israel.  For  it  is  there 
told  of  him,  amongst  other  things,  that  "  he  built  towers  in 
the  desert,  and  digged  many  wells :  for  he  had  much  cat- 
tle, both  in  the  low  country  and  in  the  plains :  husband- 
men also,  and  vine-dressers  in  the  mountains,  and  in  Car- 
mel :  for  he  loved  husbandry}''  As  though  the  precarious 
state  of  the  supply  of  food  in  the  country  had  turned  the 
king's  attention  in  a  particular  manner  to  the  improvement 
of  its  agriculture. 

X. 

THE  following  is  an  example  of  a  case  where  the  hints 
which  transpire  in  the  prophet  agree  very  well  with  par- 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  251 

ticulars  recorded  in  the  history ;  but  perhaps  that  is  all  that 
can  be  said  of  it  with  safety :  the  language  of  the  prophet 
not  being  sufficiently  specific  to  fix  the  coincidence  to  a 
certainty.  The  reader  must  judge  for  himself  of  the  value 
of  the  argument  in  this  particular  instance. 

We  read  in  Amos  (vii.  10,  11)  as  follows :  "  Then  Ama- 
ziah  the  priest  of  Beth-el  sent  to  Jeroboam  king  of  Israel, 
saying,  Amos  hath  conspired  against  thee  in  the  midst  of 
the  house  of  Israel :  the  land  is  not  able  to  bear  all  his 
words.  For  thus  Amos  saith,  Jeroboam  shall  die  by  the 
sword,  and  Israel  shall  surely  be  led  away  captive  out  of 
their  own  land." 

We  have  here  a  priest  of  Beth-el,  i.  e.  of  the  calves,  de- 
nouncing to  the  king  of  Israel  the  prophet  Amos,  as  one 
who  was  unsettling  the  minds  of  the  people  by  his  prophe- 
cies— prophecies  which  "  the  land  was  not  able  to  bear." 
It  would  seem  then  from  this  phrase  that  the  state  was  in 
a  critical  condition  ;  such  a  condition  as  gave  double  force 
to  a  prediction  which  went  to  deprive  it  of  its  king,  and  to 
consign  its  children  to  bondage.  It  was  ill  able  to  spare 
Jeroboam,  or  bear  up  against  evil  forebodings.  This  we 
gather  from  the  passage  of  Amos. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  second 
Book  of  Kings.  There  we  read,  first  of  all,  of  Jeroboam, 
that  "  he  departed  not  from  all  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  the 
son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin,"  (ver.  23) — i.  e.  that 
he  strenuously  supported  the  worship  of  the  calves.  This 
fact  then  makes  it  highly  probable  that  Amaziah,  a  priest 
of  Beth-el,  would  find  in  Jeroboam  a  ready  listener  to  any 
sinister  construction  he  might  put  upon  the  words  of  a 
prophet  of  the  Lord,  like  Amos. 

We  further  learn,  that  this  same  Jeroboam  was  one  of 
the  most  successful  princes  that  had  sat  upon  the  throne 
of  Israel ;  restoring  her  coasts,  and  recovering  her  posses- 


252  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    III. 

sions  by  force  of  arms  (ver.  25,  28) :  a  sovereign,  therefore 
to  be  missed  by  the  nation  he  ruled,  whenever  he  should 
be  removed  ;  and  especially  if  there  was  nobody  forthcom- 
ing calculated  to  replace  him.  Let  us  see  how  this  was. 
Jeroboam  reigned  forty-one  years,  (2  Kings  xiv.  23,)  but 
in  the  twenty-seventh  of  Jeroboam,  Azariah  (or  Uzziah  as 
he  is  called  in  the  Chronicles.  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  1),  began  to 
reign  in  Judah  (2  Kings  xv.  1) ;  i.  e.  Jeroboam's  reign  ex- 
pired in  the  fifteenth  of  Azariah.  But  his  son  and  succes- 
sor Zachariah,  for  some  reason  or  other,  and  owing  to  some 
impediment  which  does  not  transpire,  did  not  begin  his 
reign  over  Samaria  till  the  thirty-eighth  of  Azariah  (ib.  8). 
Therefore  the  throne  of  Samaria  must  have  been  in  some 
sort  vacant  twenty-three  years  :  nor  did  the  anarchy  cease 
even  then,  for  Zachariah  having  at  length  ascended  the 
throne,  after  a  reign  of  six  months,  was  murdered  publicly 
"  before  the  people ;"  and  Shallum,  the  usurper  who  suc- 
ceeded him,  shared  the  same  fate  after  a  reign  of  a  single 
month  (ib.  13);  and  Menahem,  the  successor  of  Shallum, 
was  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  buying  off  an  invasion  of 
the  Assyrians  (the  first  incursion  of  that  people)  under  Pul 
(ib.  19) ;  Assyria  having  in  the  meanwhile  grown  great, 
and  now  taking  advantage  of  the  ruinous  condition  of 
Israel,  consequent  on  the  death  of  Jeroboam,  to  come 
against  her.1 

Amaziah,  therefore,  might  well  declare  that  the  land 
was  not  able  to  bear  the  words  of  Amos,  for  in  all  proba- 
bility he  could  foresee,  from  the  actual  circumstances  of  the 
country,  the  troubles  that  were  likely  to  ensue  whenever 
Jeroboam's  reign  should  be  brought  to  an  end. 

1  This  is  the  first  mention  of  the  kingdom  of  Assyria  since  the  days  of 
Nimrod  (Gen.  x.  11).  It  seems  to  have  been  inconsiderable  when  the 
eighty-third  Psalm  was  penned,  in  which  Assur  is  represented  as  helping 
the  children  of  Lot.  (v.  8.) 


PART    III.  PROPHETICAL    SCRIPTURES.  253 

Here  then,  I  say,  the  language  of  the  prophet  is  at  least 
very  consistent  with  the  crisis  of  which  he  speaks,  as  rep- 
resented in  the  Book  of  Kings. 

I  could  add  several  other  examples  of  this  class,  i.  e. 
where  allusions  in  the  prophets  are  very  sufficiently  re- 
sponded to  by  events  recorded  in  the  historical  Books  of 
Scripture,  but  still  the  want  of  precision  in  the  terms  makes 
it  difficult  to  affirm  the  coincidence  between  the  two  docu- 
ments with  confidence ;  and  therefore  I  have  thought  it 
better  to  suppress  such  instances,  as  not  possessing  that 
force  of  evidence  which  entitles  them  to  a  place  in  these 
pages ;  as  for  the  same  reason  I  drew  no  contingent  to  my 
argument  from  a  comparison  between  the  Psalms  and  the 
Books  of  Samuel ;  for  though  many  of  the  Psalms  concur 
very  well  with  the  circumstances  in  which  David  is  repre- 
sented to  have  been  actually  placed  from  time  to  time,  in 
the  Books  of  Samuel ;  and  though  the  Psalms  are  often 
headed  with  a  notice  that  this  was  written  when  he  was 
flying  before  Saul,  and  that  when  he  was  reproached  by 
Nathan :  yet  the  internal  testimony  is  not  so  strong  as  to 
carry  conviction  along  with  it,  of  such  being  really  the  case ; 
and  this  failing,  it  is  folly  to  weaken  a  sound  argument  by 
a  fanciful  extension  of  it. 


THE  VERACITY 


OF  THE 


GOSPELS    AID    ACTS 


PART  IV. 

I  NOW  proceed  to  apply  the  same  test  of  truth,  the  test 
of  coincidence  without  design,  which  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  have  sustained  so  satisfactorily,  to  the 
Gospels  and  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  I  am  pleased  that 
my  first  coincidence  in  order  happens  to  be  one  of  the 
class  where  a  miracle  is  involved  in  the  coincidence. 


IN  the  fourth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  we  read  thus : — 
"  And  Jesus  walking  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  saw  two 
brethren,  Simon  called  Peter,  and  Andrew  his  brother, 
casting  a  net  into  the  sea ;  for  they  were  fishers.  And 
he  saith  unto  them,  Follow  me,  and  I  will  make  you 
fishers  of  men.  And  they  straightway  left  their  nets, 
and  followed  him.  And  going  on  from  thence,  he 
saw  other  two  brethren,  James  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
and  John  his  brother,  in  a  ship  with  Zebedee  their 


PART    IV.  THE    GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  255 

father,  mending  their  nets;   and  he  called  thern. 

And  they  immediately  left  the  ship  and  their  father, 

and  followed  him." 

Now  let  us  compare  this  with  the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  Luke. 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  that,  as  the  people  pressed  upon  him 
to  hear  the  Word  of  God,  he  stood  by  the  lake  of  Gennes- 
aret,  and  saw  two  ships  standing  by  the  lake,  but  the 
fishermen  were  gone  out  of  them,  and  were  washing  their 
nets.  And  he  entered  into  one  of  the  ships,  which  was 
Simon's,  and  prayed  him  that  he  would  thrust  out  a  little 
from  the  land.  And  he  sat  down,  and  taught  the  people 
out  of  the  ship.  Now  when  he  had  left  speaking,  he  said 
unto  Simon,  launch  out  into  the  deep,  and  let  down  your 
nets  for  a  draught.  And  Simon  answering  said  unto  him, 
Master,  we  have  toiled  all  the  night,  and  taken  nothing ; 
nevertheless  at  thy  word  I  will  let  down  the  net.  And 
when  they  had  this  done,  they  enclosed  a  great  multitude 
of  fishes,  and  their  net  brake  ;  and  they  beckoned  to  their 
partners  which  were  in  the  other  ship,  that  they  should 
come  and  help  them  ;  and  they  came,  and  filled  both  the 
ships,  so  that  they  began  to  sink.  When  Simon  Peter 
saw  it,  he  fell  down  at  Jesus'  knees,  saying,  Depart  from 
me,  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord.  For  he  was  aston- 
ished, and  all  that  were  with  him,  at  the  draught  of  the 
fishes  which  they  had  taken ;  and  so  was  also  James,  and 
John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  which  were  partners  with 
Simon.  And  Jesus  said  unto  Simon,  Fear  not;  from 
henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  men.  And  when  they  had 
brought  their  ships  to  land,  they  forsook  all,  and  followed 
him." 

The  narrative  of  St.  Luke  may  be  reckoned  the  supple- 
ment to  that  of  St.  Matthew ;  for  that  both  relate  to  the 
same  event  I  think  indisputable.  In  both  we  are  told  of 
the  circumstances  under  which  Andrew,  Peter,  James,  and 


256 


THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  PART  IV. 


John,  became  the  decided  followers  of  Christ ;  in  both 
they  are  called  to  attend  him  in  the  same  terms,  and  those 
remarkable  and  technical  terms  ;  in  both  the  scene  is  the 
same,  the  grouping  of  the  parties  the  same,  and  the  obedi- 
ence to  the  summons  the  same.  By  comparing  the  two 
Evangelists,  the  history  may  be  thus  completed: — Jesus 
teaches  the  people  out  of  Peter's  boat,  to  avoid  the  press  ; 
the  boat  of  Zebedee  and  his  sons,  meanwhile,  standing  by 
the  lake  a  little  further  on.  The  sermon  ended,  Jesus 
orders  Peter  to  thrust  out,  and  the  miraculous  draught  of 
fishes  ensues.  Peter's  boat  not  sufficing  for  the  fish,  he 
beckons  to  his  partners,  Zebedee  and  his  companions,  who 
were  in  the  other  ship.  The  vessels  are  both  filled  and 
pulled  to  the  shore  ;  and  now  Jesus,  having  convinced 
Peter  and  Andrew  by  his  preaching  and  the  miracle  which 
he  had  wrought,  gives  them  the  call.  He  then  goes  on  to 
Zebedee  and  his  sons,  who  having  brought  their  boat  to 
land  were  mending  their  nets,  and  calls  them.  Such  is 
the  whole  transaction,  not  to  be  gathered  from  one,  but 
from  both  the  Evangelists.  The  circumstance  to  be  re- 
marked, therefore,  is  this  :  that  of  the  miracle,  St.  Matthew 
says  not  a  single  word ;  nevertheless,  he  tells  us,  that 
Zebedee  and  his  sons  were  found  by  our  Lord,  when  he 
gave  them  the  call,  "  mending  their  nets."  How  it  hap- 
pened that  the  nets  wanted  mending  he  does  not  think  it 
needful  to  state,  nor  should  we  have  thought  it  needful  to 
inquire,  but  it  is  impossible  not  to  observe,  that  it  perfectly 
harmonizes  with  the  incident  mentioned  by  St.  Luke,  that 
in  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes  the  nets  brake.  Thia 
coincidence,  slight  as  it  is,  seems  to  me  to  bear  upon  the 
truth  of  the  miracle  itself.  For  the  "  mending  of  the  nets," 
asserted  by  one  Evangelist,  gives  probability  to  the  "  break- 
ing of  the  nets,"  mentioned  by  the  other — the  breaking  of 
the  nets  gives  probability  to  the  large  draught  of  fishes — 


PART   IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  257 

the  large  draught  of  fishes  gives  probability  to  the  miracle. 
I  do  not  mean  that  the  coincidence  proves  the  miracle,  but 
that  it  marks  an  attention  to  truth  in  the  Evangelists  ;  foi 
it  surely  would  be  an  extravagant  refinement  to  suppose, 
that  St.  Matthew  designedly  lets  fall  the  fact  of  the  mend- 
ing of  the  nets,  whilst  he  suppresses  the  miracle,  in  order 
to  confirm  the  credit  of  St.  Luke,  who,  in  relating  the 
miracle,  says,  that  through  it  the  nets  brake.1 

1  The  indentity  of  the  event  here  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke 
is  questioned,  and  upon  the  following  grounds. 

1.  In  St.  Matthew,  "Jesus  walks  by  the  sea  of  Galilee."    In  St.  Luke, 
"  the  people  press  upon  him  to  hear  the  word  as  he  stood  by  the  lake." 
The  quiet  walk  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  press  of  the  multitude. 
But  how  do  we  know  that  the  walk  was  a  quiet  one  1    It  is  not,  indeed, 
asserted  that  It  was  otherwise,  but  the  omission  of  a  fact  is  not  the  negation 
of  it.     Nobody  would  suppose,  from  St.  John's  account  of  the  crucifixion, 
that  nature  was  otherwise  than  perfectly  still ;  yet  there  was  an  earthquake, 
and  rending  of  rocks,  and  darkness  over  all  the  land. 

2.  In  St.  Matthew,  "  Jesus  saw  two  brethren,  Simon  and  Andrew,"  and 
addressed  them  both,  "  Follow  me."    In  St.  Mark,  (i.  17,  who  certainly 
describes  the  same  incident  as  St.  Matthew,)  he  says,  "  Come  ye,"    In  St. 
Luke,  Simon  only  is  named;  and  "  Launch  out,"  (Irraixiyayg)  is  in  the  sin- 
gular.    But  though  Simon  alone  is  named,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  some 
other  person  with  him  in  the  boat ;  for  no  sooner  is  it  needful  to  let  down 
the  nets  (an  operation  which  probably  required  more  than  one  pair  of 
hands)  than  the  number  becomes  plural  (^aXauars).     Who  the  coadjutor 
was,  is  not  hinted  at ;  but  it  strikes  me  that  there  is  a  coincidence,  and  not 
an  idle  one,  between  the  intimation  of  St.  Luke,  that  though  Simon  only  is 
named,  he  was  nevertheless  not  alone  in  the  boat,  and  the  direct  assertion 
of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  that  Andrew  was  with  him;  indeed  the 
plural  is  used  in  all  the  remainder  of  St.  Luke's  narrative — "  they  inclosed" 
— "  they  beckoned" — not  meaning  Jesus  and  Simon,  but  Simon  and  some 
»ne  with  him,  as  is  manifest  from  Jesus  himself  saying,  "  Let  ye  down  the 
nets,"  for  so  the  translation  ought  to  have  run.     And  though  it  is  true  that 
in  St.  Luke  the  call  is  expressly  directed  to  Simon  alone,  "  thou  shall  catch 
men,"  it  was  evidently  considered  to  apply  to  others;  for  "  they  forsook  all 
and  followed  him;"  amongst  whom  Andrew  might  well  be  included. 

3.  In  St.  Matthew,  Simon  and  Andrew  receive  one  call,  James  and  John 
another.     In  St.  Luke  one  call  serves  for  all.     But  where  the  two  calls 

to  the  same  effect,  and  so  nearly  at  the  same  time,  I  do  not  think  it  in- 


258  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

Besides,  though  St.  Matthew  does  not  record  the  mirac- 
ulous draught,  yet  the  readiness  of  the  several  disciples 

consistent  with  the  nature  of  the  rapid  memoranda  of  an  Evangelist  to  com- 
bine them  into  one,  any  more  than  that  the  cure  of  the  two  blind  men  near 
Jericho  of  St.  Matthew,  should  be  comprised  in  the  cure  of  one  by  St.  Mark ; 
for  the  identity  of  these  miracles,  in  spite  of  some  trifling  differences,  I  can- 
not doubt. 

4.  In  St.  Matthew,  James  and  John  are  leisurely  mending  their  nets.    In 
St.  Luke,  they  are  busily  engaged  in  helping  Simon.     But  to  draw  a  con- 
tradiction from  this,  it  is  necessary  to  show  first  of  all,  that  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  both  speak  to  the  same  instant  of  time.     The  mending  of  the  nets 
does  not  imply  that  they  had  not  been  helping  Simon,  nor  does  the  helping 
Simon  imply  that  they  would  not  presently  mend  their  nets. 

5.  It  is  further  objected  that,  if  the  mending  of  the  nets  of  St.  Matthew 
was  subsequent  to  the  breaking  of  the  nets  of  St.  Luke,  or  the  miraculous 
draught,  Simon  and  Andrew  casting  their  nets  into  the  sea  was  also  subse- 
quent to  it,  for  that  v.  18  and  v.  21  (Matt,  iv.)  relate  to  events  all  but  simul- 
taneous.   It  may  be  so,  for  my  impression  is,  that  when  Simon  and  Andrew 
cast  their  net  into  the  sea,  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  washing  the  net  after  the 
fishing  was  over,  and  not  of  fishing  r  /JdAAoiraj  d^i^narpov  is  the  expres- 
sion, and  perhaps  plunging  the  net  would  be  the  better  translation ;  and  I 
feel  confirmed  in  this  by  the  fact  that,  whatever  the  operation  was,  it  was 
done  close  to  shore,  if  not  on  the  shore,  whilst  Jesus  was  talking  to  them  on 
the  land.     Whereas,  for  fishing,  it  was   necessary  to  move  out  to  sea. 
"  Launch  out  into  the  deep,"  says  our  Lord,  when  he  wants  them  to  let 
down  their  net*  for  a  draught. 

6.  It  is  said,  that  according  to  St.  Luke,  Simon's  net  brake,  and  that, 
therefore,  Simon  and  his  companion  were  the  persons  to  mend  it ;  whereas, 
according  to  St.  Matthew,  Zebedee  and  his  sons  were  the  parties  employed. 
But  they  were  all  partners,  and  therefore  the  property  was,  probably,  com- 
mon property;  and  that  as  the  "hired  servants"  were  with  Zebedee  and 
his  sons,  it  is  not  unlikely,  but  the  contrary,  that  the  labor  of  mending  the 
nets  would  devolve  upon  them,  (Mark  i.  20). 

7.  The  last  objection  which  remains  is,  that  a  comparison  of  St.  Mark.  i. 
23 39,  with  St.  Luke  iv.  31—44,  shows  the  call  in  St.  Mark  (which  is  cer- 
tainly that  of  St.  Matthew)  to  have  been  prior  to  the  call  in  St.  Luke.     So 
it  does,  if  St.  Luke  observes  strictly  the  order  of  events  in  his  narrative ;  but 
I  see  no  sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  what  is  related  in  ch.  iv.  31 — 44, 
happened  before  what  is  related  in  ch.  v.  1—11.     In  the  former  passage,  St. 
Luke  tells  us  that  "  Jesus  came  down  to  Capernaum,  and  taught  them  on 
the  Sabbath-days,"  and  he  then  goes  on  to  mention  some  Sabbath-day  oc- 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  259 

on  this  occasion  to  follow  Jesus,  (a  thing  which  he  does 
record,)  agrees,  no  less  than  the  mending  of  the  nets,  with 
that  extraordinary  event ;  for  what  more  natural  than  that 
men  should  leave  all  for  a  master  whose  powers  were  so 
commanding  ? 


II. 


Matth.  iv.  21. — "  And  going  on  from  thence,  he  saw  othei 
two  brethren,  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his 
brother,  in  a  ship  with  Zebedee  their  Father" 

Ch.  viii.  21. — "And  another  of  his  disciples  said  unto  him, 
Lord,  suffer  me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father  " 

Ch.  xx.  20. — "  Then  came  to  him  the  mother  of  Zebededs 
children,  with  her  sons,  worshipping  him,  and  desir- 
ing a  certain  thing  of  him." 

Ch.  xxvii.  55,  56. — "And  many  women  were  there,  behold- 
ing afar  off,  which  followed  Jesus  from  Galilee,  min* 
istering  unto  him.  Among  which  was  Mary  Magda- 
lene, and  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  and 
the  mother  of  Zebededs  children. 
WHEN  the  coincidence  which  I  shall  found  upon  these 

h 

currences,  concluding  the  whole  "  and  he  preached  in  the  synagogues  of 
Galilee."  This  had  carried  him  too  much  in  medias  res,  and  therefore  in 
ch.  v.  he  brings  up  some  of  the  work-day  events,  which  a  wish  to  pursue 
his  former  subject  without  interruption  had  led  him  to  withhold  for  awhile, 
though  of  prior  date.  And  only  let  us  observe  how  clumsily  the  narrative 
would  proceed  upon  any  other  supposition — Jesus  calls  Andrew  and  Peter, 
James  and  John,  as  he  was  walking  by  the  sea-side — then  he  goes  to  Caper- 
naum—heals Peter's  wife's  mother,  performs  other  cures,  and  retires  to  a 
solitary  place  (Mark  i.  16— 3G).  Then,  supposing  St.  Luke  here  to  take 
up  the  parable,  (ch.  iv.  42,)  he  goes  again  to  the  sea-side,  and  again  calli 
Peter,  James,  and  John  ;  which  would  surely  be  one  call  too  much. 
I  doubt  not,  therefore,  tLe  identity  of  the  events  described . 


J860  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

passages  first  occurred  to  me,  I  felt  some  doubt  whether, 
by  producing  it,  I  might  not  subject  myself  to  a  charge  of 
over-refinement.  On  further  consideration,  however,  I  am 
satisfied  that  the  conjecture  I  hazard  (for  it  is  nothing  more) 
is  far  from  improbable ;  and  I  am  the  less  disposed  to  with- 
hold it  from  having  observed,  when  I  have  chanced  to  dis- 
cuss any  of  these  paragraphs  with  my  friends,  how  differ- 
ently the  importance  of  an  argument  is  estimated  by  differ- 
ent minds ;  a  point  of  evidence  often  inducing  conviction 
in  one,  which  another  would  find  almost  nugatory. 

Whoever  reads  the  four  verses  which  I  have  given  at 
the  head  of  this  number  in  juxtaposition,  will  probably  an- 
ticipate what  I  have  to  say.  The  coincidence  here  is  not 
between  several  writers,  but  between  several  detached  pas- 
sages of  the  same  writer.  From  the  first  of  these  verses  it 
appears  that,  at  the  period  when  James  and  John  received 
the  call  to  follow  Christ,  Zebedee  their  father  was  alive. 
They  obeyed  the  call,  and  left  him.  From  the  last  two 
yerses  it  appears,  in  my  opinion,  that,  at  a  subsequent  pe- 
riod of  which  they  treat,  Zebedee  was  dead.  Zebedee 
does  not  make  the  application  to  Christ  on  behalf  of  his 
sons,  but  the  mother  of  Zebededs  children  makes  it. 
Zebedee  is  not  at  the  crucifixion,  but  the  mother  of  Zebe- 
dee's  children.  It  is  not  from  his  absence  on  these  occa- 
sions that  I  so  much  infer  his  death,  as  from  the  expression 
applied  to  Salome  ;  she  is  not  called  the  wife  of  Zebedee, 
she  is  not  called  the  mother  of  James  and  John,  but  the 
mother  of  Zebededs  children.  The  term,  I  think,  implies 
that  she  was  a  widow. 

Now  from  the  second  verse,  which  relates  to  a  period 
between  these  two,  we  learn  that  one  of  Jesus'  disciples 
asked  him  permission  "to  go  and  bury  his  father."  The 
interval  was  a  short  one ;  the  number  of  persons  to  whom 
the  name  of  disciple  was  given,  was  very  small  (see  Matt 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  261 

ix.  37) ;  a  single  boat  seems  to  have  contained  them  all 
(viii.  23).  In  that  number  we  know  that  the  sons  of  Zeb~ 
edee  were  included.  My  inference,  therefore,  is,  that  the 
death  of  Zebedee  is  here  alluded  to,  and  that  St.  Matthew, 
without  a  wish,  perhaps,  or  thought,  either  to  conceal  or 
express  the  individual,  (for  there  seems  no  assignable  mo- 
tive for  his  studying  to  do  either,)  betrays  an  event  familiar 
to  his  own  mind,  in  that  inadvertent  and  unobtrusive  man- 
ner in  which  the  truth  so  often  comes  out. 

The  data,  it  must  be  confessed,  are  not  enough  to  deter- 
mine the  matter  with  certainty  either  way ;  it  is  a  conjec- 
tural coincidence.  They  who  are  not  satisfied  with  it  may 
pass  it  over :  I  am  persuaded,  however,  that  nothing  is 
wanted  but  the  discovery  of  a  fifth  or  sixth  Gospel  to  mul- 
tiply such  proofs  of  veracity  as  these  I  am  collecting  to  a 
great  extent.  It  is  impossible  to  examine  the  historical 
parts  of  the  New  Testament  in  detail,  without  suspicions 
constantly  arising  of  facts,  which,  nevertheless,  cannot  be 
substantiated  for  want  of  documents.  We  have  very  often 
a  glimpse,  and  no  more.  A  hint  is  dropped  relating  to 
something  well  known  at  the  time,  and  which  is  not  with- 
out its  value  even  now  in  evidence,  by  giving  us  to  under- 
stand that  it  is  a  fragment  of  some  real  story,  of  which  we 
are  not  in  full  possession.  Of  this  nature  is  the  circum- 
stance recorded  by  St.  Mark,  (xiv.  51,)  that  when  the  dis- 
ciples forsook  Jesus,  "  there  followed  him  a  certain  young 
man,  having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  his  naked  body,  and 
the  young  men  laid  hold  of  him  ;  and  he  left  the  linen 
cloth,  and  fled  from  them  naked."  This  is  evidently  an 
imperfect  history.  It  is  an  incident  altogether  detached, 
and  alone  :  another  Gospel  might  give  us  the  supplement, 
and  together  with  that  supplement  indications  of  its  truth. 
As  another  example  of  the  same  kind,  may  be  mentioned 
an  expression  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  chapter  of 


262  THE    VERACITY   OP   THE  PART  IV. 

the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  "  and  the  third  day  there  was  a 
marriage  in  Cana  of  Galilee"  (ver.  i.) ;  the  Apostle  clearly 
having  some  other  event  in  his  mind  which  does  not  tran- 
spire, from  which  this  third  day  dates.  Meanwhile  let  us 
but  apply  ourselves  diligently  to  comparing  together  the 
four  witnesses  which  we  have,  instead  of  indulging  a  fruit- 
less desire  for  more,  and  if  consistency  without  design  be  a 
proof  that  they  are  "  true  men,"  I  cannot  but  consider  that 
it  is  abundantly  supplied. 


III. 

Matth.  viii.  14 — "  And  when  Jesus  was  come  into  Peter's 
house,  he  saw  his  wife's  mother  laid,  and  sick  of  a 
fever." 

THE  coincidence  which  I  have  here  to  mention  does 
not  strictly  fall  within  my  plan,  for  it  results  from  a  com- 
parison of  St.  Matthew  with  St.  Paul ;  if,  however,  it  be 
thought  of  any  value,  the  irregularity  of  its  introduction 
will  be  easily  overlooked. 

In  this  passage  of  the  Evangelist,  then,  by  the  merest 
accident  in  the  world,  we  discover  that  Peter  was  a  mar- 
ried man.  It  is  a  circumstance  that  has  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  narrative,  but  is  a  gratuitous  piece  of 
information,  conveyed  incidentally  in  the  designation  of 
an  individual  who  was  the  subject  of  a  miracle. 

But  that  Peter  actually  was  a  married  man,  we  learn 
from  the  independent  testimony  of  St.  Paul :  "  Have  we 
not  power,"  says  he,  "  to  lead  about  a  sister,  a  wife,  as  well 
as  other  apostles,  and  as  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  and 
Cephas  ?"  1  Cor.  ix.  5.  Where  it  may  be  remarked  that 
the  difference  in  name,  Cephas  in  the  one  passage,  Peter 
in  the  other,  is  in  itself  an  argument  that  the  one  passage 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  263 

was  written  without  any  reference  to  the  other — that  the 
coincidence  was  without  design.  Here  again,  be  it  ob- 
served, as  in  the  former  instance,  the  indication  of  veracity 
in  the  Apostle's  narrative,  is  found  where  the  subject  of 
the  narrative  is  a  miracle  ;  for  Christ  having  "  touched  her 
hand,  the  fever  left  her,  and  she  arose  and  ministered  unto 
them,"  (ver.  15.) 

I  cannot  but  think  that  any  candid  sceptic  would  con- 
sider this  coincidence  to  be  at  least  decisive  of  the  actual 
existence  of  such  a  woman  as  Peter's  wife's  mother  ;  of 
its  being  no  imaginary  character,  no  mere  person  of  straw, 
introduced  with  an  air  of  precision,  under  the  view  of  giving 
a  color  of  truth  to  the  miracle.  Yet,  unless  the  Evan- 
gelist had  felt  quite  sure  of  his  ground,  quite  sure,  I  mean, 
that  this  remarkable  cure  would  bear  examination,  it  is 
scarcely  to  be  believed  that  he  would  have  fixed  it  upon 
an  individual  who  certainly  did  live,  or  had  lived,  and  who 
therefore  might  herself,  or  her  friends  might  for  her,  con- 
tradict the  alleged  fact,  if  it  never  had  occurred. 


IV. 


Matt.  viii.  16. — "  When  the  even  was  come,  they  brought 
unto  him  many  that  were  possessed  with  devils  ;  and 
he  cast  out  the  spirits  with  his  word,  and  healed  all 
that  were  sick." 

THE  undesignedness  of  many  passages  in  the  Gospels 
is  overlooked  in  our  familiar  acquaintance  with  them. 
They  have  been  so  long  the  subject  of  our  reading  and  of 
our  reflection,  that  the  evidence  they  furnish  of  their  own 
veracity  does  not  always  present  itself  to  us  with  that  fresh- 
ness which  is  necessary  to  give  it  its  due  effect.  We  often, 
no  doubt,  fill  up  an  ellipsis  and  complete  a  meaning  almost 


264 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV 


instinctively,  without  being  aware  how  strongly  the  neces« 
sity  for  doing  this,  marks  the  absence  of  all  caution,  con- 
trivance, and  circumspection  in  the  writers.  For  instance, 
why  did  they  bring  the  sick  and  possessed  to  Jesus  when 
the  even  was  come  ?  I  turn  to  the  parallel  passages  of  St. 
Mark  (i.  24)  and  St.  Luke  (iv.  31),  and  find  that  the  trans- 
action in  question  took  place  on  the  Sabbath-day.  I  turn 
to  another  passage  in  St.  Matthew,  (xii.  10,)  wholly  inde- 
pendent, however,  of  the  former,  and  find  that  there  was 
a  superstition  amongst  the  Jews  that  it  "  was  not  lawful  to 
heal  on  the  Sabbath-day."  I  put  these  together,  and  at 
onoe  see  the  reason  why  no  application  for  a  cure  was 
made  to  Jesus  till  the  Sabbath  was  past,  or  in  other  words, 
till  the  even  was  come.  But  St.  Matthew,  meanwhile, 
does  not  offer  one  syllable  in  explanation.  He  states  the 
naked  fact — that  when  the  even  was  come  people  were 
brought  to  be  healed  ;  and,  for  aught  that  appears  to  the 
contrary,  it  might  have  been  any  other  day  of  the  week. 
Suppose  it  had  happened  that  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  had 
been  the  only  one  which  had  descended  to  us,  the  value 
of  these  few  words,  "  when  the  even  was  come"  would 
have  been  quite  lost  as  an  argument  for  the  veracity  of  his 
story  ;  for  how  could  it  have  been  conjectured  that  the 
thought  which  was  influencing  St.  Matthew's  mind  at  the 
moment  when  they  escaped  him,  was  this,  that  these  things 
were  done  on  the  evening  of  a  Sabbath-day  ?  There  is 
no  one  circumstance  in  the  previous  narrative  of  the  events 
of  that  day  as  given  by  this  Evangelist,  to  point  to  such  a 
conclusion.  Jesus  had  entered  into  Capernaum — he  had 
healed  the  centurion's  servant — he  had  healed  Peter's 
wife's  mother  of  a  fever — how  could  it  be  known  from  any 
of  these  acts  that  the  day  was  the  Sabbath  7  Or  suppose 
we  had  been  in  possession  of  the  other  three  Evangelists, 
but  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  had  just  been  dis- 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS. 


265 


covered  among  the  manuscripts  of  Milan,  I  ask  whether 
such  an  argument  as  this  would  not  have  had  much  weight 
in  establishing  its  authority  ? 

I  am  not  concerned  about  the  perfect  intelligibility  of 
this  passage  in  St.  Matthew.  Its  meaning  is  obvious,  and 
it  would  be  a  waste  of  words  to  offer  what  I  have  done,  as 
commentary — all  that  1  am  anxious  to  do,  is  to  point  out 
the  undesignedness  apparent  in  it,  which  is  such,  I  think, 
as  a  writer  of  an  imaginary  narrative  could  not  possibly 
have  displayed. 


V. 


Matth.  ix.  9,  10. — "  And  as  Jesus  passed  forth  from  thence, 
he  saw  a  man,  named  Matthew,  sitting  at  the  receipt 
of  custom  ;  and  he  saith  unto  him,  Follow  me  ;  and 
he  arose  and  followed  him.     And  it  came  to  pass,  as 
Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the  house,1  behold,  many  publi- 
cans and  sinners  came  and  sat  down  with  him." 
How  natural  for  a  man,  speaking  of  a  transaction  which 
concerned  himself,  to  forget  for  a  moment  the  character  of 
the  historian,  and  to  talk  of  Jesus  sitting  down  in  the  house, 
without  telling  his  readers  whose  house  it  was  !     How  nat- 
ural for  him  not  to  perceive  that  there  was  vagueness  and 
obscurity  in  a  term,  which  to  himself  was  definite  and 
plain  !     Accordingly  we  find  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  who 
deal  with  the  same  incident  as  historians,  not  as  principals, 
using  a  different  form  of  expression.     "  And  as  they  passed 
by,"  says  St.  Mark,  "  he  saw  Levi  the  son  of  Alpheus  sit- 
ting at  the  receipt  of  custom,  and  said  unto  him,  Follow 

l  iv  TV  oiVi'o.    I  do  not  observe  that  Bishop  Middleton  notices  this  instance 
of  the  definite  use  of  the  Article. 

23 


266  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART.    IV. 

me  :  and  he  arose  and  followed  him.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
that  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  his  house."  (ii.  15.) 

"  And  Levij"  says  St.  Luke,  "  made  him  a  great  feast  in 
his  own  house."  (v.  29.) 

It  may  be  further  remarked,  that  a  number  of  publi- 
cans sat  down  with  Jesus  and  his  disciples  upon  this  oc- 
casion ;  a  fact  for  which  no  reason  is  assigned,  but  for 
which  we  discover  a  very  good  reason  in  the  occupation 
which  St.  Matthew  had  followed. 

I  think  the  odds  are  very  great  against  the  probability 
of  a  writer  preserving  consistency  in  trifles  like  these,  were 
he  only  devising  a  story.  I  can  scarcely  imagine  that 
such  a  person  would  hit  upon  the  phrase  "  in  the  house," 
as  an  artful  way  of  suggesting  that  the  house  was  in  fact 
his  own,  and  himself  an  eye-witness  of  the  scene  he  de- 
scribed ;  still  less,  that  he  would  refine  yet  further,  and 
make  the  company  assembled  there  to  consist  of  publicans, 
in  order  that  the  whole  picture  might  be  complete  and  har- 
monious. It  may  be  added,  that  Capernaum,  which  was 
the  scene  of  St.  Matthew's  call,  was  precisely  the  place 
where  we  might  expect  to  meet  with  a  man  of  his  voca- 
tion— it  being  a  station  where  such  merchandise  as  was  to 
be  conveyed  by  water-carriage,  along  the  Jordan  south- 
wards, might  be  very  conveniently  shipped,  and  where  a 
custom-house  would  consequently  be  established.  There 
is  a  similar  propriety  in  the  habitat  of  Zaccheus  (Luke  xix. 
2) ;  he  was  a  "  chief  among  the  publicans,"  and  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  fallen  in  with  him  near  Jericho.  Now  Jericho 
was  the  centre  of  the  growth,  preparation,  and  export,  of 
balsam,  a  very  considerable  branch  of  trade  in  Judea  ;  and 
therefore  a  town  which  invited  the  presence  of  the  tax- 
gatherers.  These  are  small  matters,  but  such  as  bespeak 
Iruth  in  those  who  detail  them. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS. 


267 


VI. 


AKIN  to  this  is  my  next  instance1  of  consistency  without 
design. 

Matth.  x.  2. — "  Now  the  names  of  the  twelve  Apostles  are 
these :  the  first,  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter,  and  An- 
drew his  brother ;  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and 
John  his  brother ;  Philip,  and  Bartholomew  ;  Thomas, 
and  Matthew  the  publican;  James,  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus,  and  Lebbeus,  whose  surname  was  Thaddeus  ; 
Simon  the  Canaanite,  and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  also 
betrayed  him." 

This  order,  as  far  as  regards  Thomas  and  Matthew,  is 
ko  verted  in  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.  "  Philip  and  Barthol- 
omew, and  Matthew  and  Thomas"  is  the  succession  of 
the  names  in  those  two  Evangelists,  (Mark  iii.  18 ;  Luke 
vi.  15  ;)  and  by  neither  of  them  is  the  odious,  but  distinc- 
tive, appellation  of  "  the  publican"  added.  This  difference, 
however,  in  St.  Matthew's  catalogue,  from  that  given  by 
St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  is  precisely  such  as  might  be  ex- 
pected from  a  modest  man  when  telling  his  own  tale :  he 
places  his  own  name  after  that  of  a  colleague  who  had  no 
claims  to  precedence,  but  rather  the  contrary,  and,  fearful 
that  its  obscurity  might  render  it  insufficient  merely  to  an- 
nounce it,  and,  at  the  same  time,  perhaps,  not  unwilling  to 
inflict  upon  himself  an  act  of  self-humiliation,  he  annexes 
to  it  his  former  calling,  which  was  notorious  at  least,  how- 
ever it  might  be  unpopular.  I  should  not  be  disposed  to 
lay  great  stress  upon  this  example  of  undesigned  consist- 
ency were  it  a  solitary  instance,  but  when  taken  in  con- 

1  In  this  argument  I  am  indebted  to  Nelson,  (Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  229,) 
who  advances  it,  however,  for  a  different  end,  to  prove  the  humility,  not  the 
veracity,  of  St.  Matthew. 


268  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    IV 

junction  with  so  many  others,  it  may  be  allowed  a  place , 
for  though  the  order  of  names  and  the  annexed  epithet 
might  be  accidental,  yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  the} 
would  be  accounted  for  at  least  as  well  by  the  veracity  of 
the  narrative. 


VII. 

Matth.  xii.  46.—"  While  he  yet  talked,  behold,  his  mother 
and  his  brethren  stood  without,  desiring  to  speak 
with  him" 

WHAT  his  mother's  communication  might  be  the  Evan- 
gelist does  not  record.  It  seems  to  have  been  made  pri- 
vately and  apart,  and  was  probably  not  overheard  by  any 
of  his  followers.  But,  in  the  next  chapter,  St.  Matthew 
very  undesignedly  mentions,  that  "  when  he  was  come  into 
his  own  country,  he  taught  them  in  the  synagogue," 
(xiii.  54).  Hence  then  we  see,  that  the  interview  with  his 
mother  and  brethren  was  shortly  succeeded  by  a  visit  to 
their  town.  The  visit  might,  indeed,  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  interview,  nor  does  St.  Matthew  hint  that  it  had 
anything  whatever  to  do  with  it,  (for  then  no  argument  of 
veracity,  founded  upon  the  undesigned  coincidence  of  the 
two  facts,  could  have  been  here  advanced,)  but  still  there 
is  a  fair  presumption  that  the  visit  was  in  obedience  to  his 
mother's  wish,  more  especially  as  the  disposition  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Nazareth,  which  must  have  been  known  to 
Christ,  was  unfit  for  his  doing  there  any  mighty  works. 


VIII. 

THE  death  of  Joseph  is  nowhere  either  mentioned,  or 
alluded  to,  by  the  Evangelists ;  yet,  from  all  four  of  them 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS. 

it  may  be  indirectly  inferred  to  have  happened  whilst 
Christ  was  yet  alive  ;  a  circumstance  in  which,  had  they 
been  imposing  a  story  upon  us,  they  would  scarcely  have 
concurred,  when  the  concurrence  is  manifestly  not  the 
effect  of  scheme  or  contrivance.  Thus  in  the  passage  from 
St.  Matthew,  quoted  in  the  last  paragraph,  we  find  his 
mother  and  brethren  seeking  Jesus,  but  not  his  reputed 
father.  In  St.  Mark  we  have  the  whole  family  enumerated, 
but  no  mention  made  of  Joseph.  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter, 
the  son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James,  and  Joses,  and  of 
Juda,  and  Simon  ?  and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us  ?J> 
(vi.  3.) 

"  Then  came  to  him,"  says  St.  Luke,  "  his  mother  and 
his  brethren,  and  could  not  come  at  him  for  the  press," 
(viii.  19.)  "  After  this,"  says  St.  John,  "  he  went  down  to 
Capernaum  ;  he,  and  his  mother,  and  his  brethren,  and  his 
disciples."  (ii.  12.) 

Neither  do  we  meet  with  any  notice  of  Joseph's  attend- 
ance at  the  feast  of  Can  a,  or  at  the  Crucifixion ;  indeed,  in 
his  last  moments  Jesus  commends  his  mother  to  the  care 
of  the  disciple  whom  he  loved,  and  that  "  disciple  took  her 
to  his  own  home." 

Such  a  harmony  as  this  cannot  have  been  the  effect  of 
concert.  It  is  not  a  direct,  or  even  an  incidental  agree- 
ment in  a  positive  fact,  for  nothing  is  asserted ;  but  yet, 
from  the  absence  of  assertion,  a  presumption  of  such  fact 
:s  conveyed  to  us  by  the  separate  narrative  of  each  of  the 
Evangelists. 


23* 


270  THE    VERACITY   OP   THE  PART    IV 


IX. 


Matth.  xiii.  2. — "And  great  multitudes  were  gathered  to* 
gether  unto  him,  so  that  he  went  into  a  ship,  (els  T<! 
TiAorov),  and  sat." 

'  IN  this,  and  in  some  other  places  of  the  Evangelists, 
says  Bishop  Middleton,  '  we  have  nloiov  with  the  article 
(the  ship,  not  a  ship) ;  the  force  of  which,  however,  is  not 
immediately  obvious.  In  the  present  instance  the  English 
version,  Newcome,  and  Campbell,  understand  TO  nloiov  in- 
definitely ;  but  that  any  ship,  without  reference,  can  be 
meant  by  this  phrase,  is  grammatically  impossible.  Many 
philologists,  indeed,  have  adduced  this  passage  amongst 
others,  to  show  that  this  article  is  sometimes  without  mean- 
ing ;  but  this  proves  only  that  its  meaning  was  sometimes 
unknown  to  them. 

c  Mr.  Wakefield  observes,  in  his  New  Testament,  "  a  par- 
ticular vessel  is  uniformly  specified.  It  seems  to  have  been 
kept  on  the  lake  for  the  use  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles.  It 
probably  belonged  to  some  of  the  fishermen  (Luke  iv.  22) 
who,  I  should  think,  occasionally  at  least,  continued  to  fol- 
low their  former  occupation.  See  John  xxi.  3."  Thus  far 
Mr.  Wakefield,  whose  solution  carried  with  it  an  air  of 
strong  probability :  and  when  we  look  at  Mark  iii.  9,  which 
appears  to  have  escaped  him,  this  conjecture  becomes  ab- 
solute certainty.  "And  he  spake  to  his  disciples  that  a 
small  vessel  should  wait  on  him"  (constantly  be  wait- 
ing on  him,  n^oaxaQTfQi]  ariito)  because  of  the  multitude,  lest 
they  should  throng  him.  Moreover,  I  think  we  may  dis- 
cover to  whom  the  vessel  belonged.  In  one  Evangelist, 
(Luke  v.  3,)  we  find  a  ship  used  by  our  Saviour  for  the 
very  purpose  here  mentioned,  declared  expressly  to  be 
Simon's ;  and  afterwards,  in  the  same  Evangelist,  (viii.  22, 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  271 


we  have  the  ship,  TO  nloiov^  definitely,  as  if  it  were  intended 
that  the  reader  should  understand  it  of  the  ship  already 
spoken  of.  It  is  therefore  not  improbable  that  in  the  other 
Evangelists  also,  the  vessel  so  frequently  used  by  our  Sav 
iour  was  that  belonging  to  Peter  and  Andrew.'1  Where 
Bishop  Middleton  finds  a  philological  solution,  I  find  an 
undesigned  coincidence.  St.  Matthew  speaks  of  "  the  ship" 
(tb  nloiov)  into  which  Jesus  went,  as  though  referring  to  a 
well-known  vessel.  St.  Mark  tells  us  that  he  had  "  a  small 
vessel  to  wait  on  him" 


X. 


Matth.  xiv.  1. — "  At  that  time  Herod  the  Tetrarch  heard 
of  the  fame  of  Jesus,  and  said  unto  his  servants,  (tot$ 
naiaiv  afoot},)  This  is  John  the  Baptist,  who  has  risen 
from  the  dead." 

ST.  MATTHEW  here  declares  that  Herod  delivered  his 
opinion  of  Christ  to  his  servants.  There  must  have  been 
some  particular  reason,  one  would  imagine,  to  induce  him 
to  make  such  a  communication  to  them  above  all  other 
people.  What  could  it  have  been?  St.  Mark  does  not 
help  us  to  solve  the  question,  for  he  contents  himself  with 
recording  what  Herod  said.  Neither  does  St.  Luke,  in  the 
parallel  passage,  tell  us  to  whom  he  addressed  himself — 
"  he  was  desirous  of  seeing  him,  .because  he  had  heard 
many  things  of  him"  By  referring,  however,  to  the 
eighth  chapter  of  this  last  Evangelist,  the  cause  why  Herod 
had  heard  so  much  about  Christ,  and  why  he  talked  to 
his  servants  about  him,  is  sufficiently  explained,  but  it  is 
by  the  merest  accident.  We  are  there  informed,  "that 
Jesus  went  throughout  every  city  and  village,  preaching 

(i  Bishop  Middleton  on  the  Greek  Article,  p.  158.) 


272  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

and  showing  the  glad  tidings  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and 
the  twelve  were  with  him,  and  certain  women  who  had 
been  healed  of  evil  spirits  and  infirmities :  Mary,  called 
Magdalene,  out  of  whom  went  seven  devils ;  and  Joanna 
the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  and  Susanna,  and 
many  others,  which  ministered  unto  him  of  their  sub- 
stance." 

And  again,  in  chap.  xiii.  ver.  1,  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, we  read,  amongst  other  distinguished  converts,  of 
"  Manaen,  which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the 
Tetrarch"  or,  in  other  words,  who  was  his  foster-brother. 
We  see,  therefore,  that  Christ  had  followers  from  amongst 
the  household  of  this  very  prince,  and,  accordingly,  that 
Herod  was  very  likely  to  discourse  with  his  servants  on  a 
subject  in  which  they  were  better  informed  than  himself. 


XI. 

MATTH.  xiv.  20. — In  the  miracle  of  feeding  the  five 
thousand  with  five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  recorded  by  all 
four  Evangelists,  the  disciples,  we  are  told,  took  up  dddexa 
xocpivovg  Til^Qeis  (Matth.  xiv.  20 ;  Mark  vi.  43  ;  Luke  ix. 
17 ;  John  vi.  13  ;)  in  all  these  cases  our  translation  ren- 
ders the  passage  " twelve  baskets" 

In  the  miracle  of  feeding  the  four  thousand  with  seven 
loaves  and  a  few  small  fishes,  recorded  by  two  of  the  Evan- 
gelists, the  disciples  took  up  tmu.  anvpi'das  (Matth.  xv.  37  ; 
Mark  viii.  8 ;)  in  both  these  cases  our  translation  renders 
the  passages  "  seven  baskets  ;"  the  term  xoyitos,  and  anvils 
being  expressed  both  alike  by  " basket" 

Yet  there  was,  no  doubt,  a  marked  difference  between 
these  two  vessels,  whatever  that  difference  might  be,  for 
x6q>ivos  is  invariably  used  when  the  miracle  of  the  five 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  273 


thousand  is  spoken  of;  and  anvqig  is  invariably  used  when 
the  miracle  of  the  four  thousand  is  spoken  of.  Moreover 
such  distinction  is  clearly  suggested  to  us  in  Matth.  xvi.  9, 
10,  where  our  Saviour  cautions  his  disciples  against  the 
"  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  j"  and  in  so  doing, 
alludes  to  each  of  these  miracles  thus  :  "  Do  ye  not  yet  un- 
derstand. neither  remember  the  five  loaves  of  the  Jive  thou- 
sand, and  how  many  baskets  (xoyivovg)  ye  took  up  ?  nei- 
ther the  seven  loaves  of  the  four  thousand,  and  how  many 
baskets  (onvgidug)  ye  took  up?"  though  here  again  the 
distinction  is  entirely  lost  in  our  translation,  both  xoylvovs 
and  ffnvQidag  being  still  rendered  "  baskets,"  alike. 

The  precise  nature  of  the  difference  of  these  two  kinds 
of  baskets  it  may  be  difficult  to  determine  ;  and  the  lexicog- 
raphers and  commentators  do  not  enable  us  to  do  it  with 
accuracy  ;  though  from  the  word  anvgig  being  used  (Acts 
ix.  25)  for  the  basket  in  which  St.  Paul  was  let  down  over 
the  wall,  we  may  suppose  that  it  was  capacious  ;  whereas 
from  the  xoyivoi^  in  this  instance,  being  twelve  in  number, 
we  may  in  like  manner  suppose  that  they  were  the  provis- 
ion-baskets carried  by  the  twelve  disciples,  and  were,  con- 
sequently, smaller.  But  the  point  of  the  coincidence  is 
independent  of  the  precise  difference  of  the  vessels,  and 
consists  in  the  uniform  application  of  the  term  xoyvos  to 
the  basket  of  the  one  miracle  (wheresoever  and  by  whom- 
soever told  ;)  and  as  the  uniform  application  of  the  term 
envois,  to  the  basket  of  the  other  miracle  ;  such  uniform- 
ity marking  very  clearly  the  two  miracles  to  be  distinctly 
impressed  on  the  minds  of  the  Evangelists,  as  real  events  ; 
the  circumstantial  peculiarities  of  each  present  to  them,  as 
though  they  were  themselves  actual  eye-witnesses  :  or  at 
least  had  received  their  report  from  those  who  were  so. 

It  is  next  to  impossible  that  such  coincidences  in  both 
cases,  between  the  fragments  and  the  receptacles,  respeo 


274  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

lively,  should  have  been  preserved  by  chance ;  or  by  a 
teller  of  a  tale  at  third  or  fourth  hand ;  and  accordingly 
we  see  that  the  coincidences  is  in  fact  entirely  lost  by  our 
translators,  who  were  not  witnesses  of  the  miracles ;  and 
whose  attention  did  not  happen  to  be  drawn  to  the  point. 


XII. 

WE  do  not  read  a  great  deal  respecting  Herod  the  Te- 
trarch  in  the  Evangelists ;  but  all  that  is  said  of  him  will 
be  perceived,  on  examination,  (for  it  may  not  strike  us  at 
first  sight,)  to  be  perfectly  harmonious. 

When  the  disciples  had  forgotten  to  take  bread  with 
them  in  the  boat,  our  Lord  warns  them  to  "  take  heed  and 
beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  of  the  leaven 
of  Herod."  So  says  St.  Mark,  (viii.  15).  The  charge 
which  Jesus  gives  them  on  this  occasion  is  thus  worded 
by  St.  Matthew,  "  Take  heed  and  beware  of  the  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees"  (xvi.  6).  The  obvious 
interference  to  be  drawn  from  the  two  passages  is,  that 
Herod  himself  was  a  Sadducee.  Let  us  turn  to  St.  Luke, 
and  though  still  we  find  no  assertion  to  this  effect,  he 
would  clearly  lead  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  Chap.  ix. 
7,  "  Now  Herod  the  Tetrarch  heard  of  all  that  was  done 
by  him  ;  and  he  was  perplexed,  because  that  it  was  said  of 
some,  that  John  was  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  of  some> 
that  Elias  had  appeared  ;  and  of  some,  that  one  of  the  old 
prophets  was  risen  again.  And  Herod  said,  John  have 
I  beheaded,  but  who  is  this  of  whom  I  hear  such  things  ? 
and  he  desired  to  see  him." 

The  transmigration  of  the  souls  of  good  men  was  a  pop- 
ular belief  at  that  time  amongst  the  Pharisees ;  (see  Jose- 
phus,  B.  J.  ii.  83,  14) ;  a  Pharisee,  therefore,  would  have 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  275 

found  little  difficulty  in  this  resurrection  of  John,  or  of  an 
old  prophet ;  in  fact,  it  was  the  Pharisees,  no  doubt,  who 
started  the  idea :  not  so  Herod  ;  he  was  perplexed  about 
it ;  he  had  "  beheaded  John,"  which  was  in  his  creed  the 
termination  of  his  existence  ;  well  then  might  he  ask,  "  who 
is  this  of  whom  I  hear  such  things  ?"  Neither  do  I  discover 
any  objection  in  the  parallel  passage  of  St.  Matthew,  xiv. 
1 :  "At  that  time  Herod  the  Tetrarch  heard  of  the  fame 
of  Jesus,  and  said  unto  his  servants,  This  is  John  the  Bap- 
tist ;  he  is  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  therefore  mighty  works 
do  show  forth  themselves  in  him."  It  is  the  language  of  a 
man,  (especially  when  taken  in  connection  with  St.  Luke,) 
who  began  to  doubt  whether  he  was  right  in  his  Sadducean 
notions ;  a  guilty  conscience  awaking  in  him  some  appre- 
hension that  he  whom  he  had  murdered  might  be  alive 
again — that  there  might,  after  all,  be  a  "resurrection, 
an  angel,  and  spirit." 


XIII. 

Matth.  xvii.  19. — "  Then  came  the  disciples  to  Jesus  apart, 
and  said,  Why  could  not  we  cast  him  out?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  Because  of  your  unbelief .  .  . 
Howbeit  this  kind  goeth  not  out  but  by  prayer  and 
fasting" 

HERE,  therefore,  the  words  of  Jesus  imply  that  the  dis- 
ciples did  not  fast.  Yet  the  observation  is  made  in  that 
incidental  manner  in  which  a  fact  familiar  to  the  mind  of 
the  speaker  so  often  comes  out.  It  has  not  the  smallest 
appearance  of  being  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  confirm- 
ing any  previous  assertion  to  the  same  effect.  Yet  in 
Chapter  ix.  ver.  14,  we  had  been  told  that  the  disciples  of 
John  came  to  Jesus,  saying,  "  Why  do  we  and  the  Phari- 


276  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    IV. 

sees  fast  oft,  but  thy  disciples  fast  not  ?"  It  may  be  re- 
marked, too,  that  the  former  passage  not  only  implies  that 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  did  not  fast,  but  that  Jesus  himself 
did,  and  that  the  latter  passage  singularly  enough  implies 
the  very  same  thing ;  for  it  does  not  run,  why  do  we  and 
the  Pharisees  fast  oft,  but  thou  and  thy  disciples  fast  not? 
(which  would  be  the  strict  antithesis),  but  only,  why  do 
thy  disciples  fast  not  ? 


XIV. 

Matth.  xxvi.  67. — "  Then  did  they  spit  in  his  face,  and 
buffeted  him ;  and  others  smote  him  with  the  palms 
of  their  hands,  saying,  Prophesy  unto  us^  thou  Christ, 
who  is  he  that  smote  thee  ?" 

I  THINK  undesigned  ness  may  be  traced  in  this  passage, 
both  in  what  is  expressed  and  what  is  omitted.  It  is  usual 
for  one  who  invents  a  story  which  he  wishes  should  be  be- 
lieved, to  be  careful  that  its  several  parts  hang  well  together 
— to  make  its  conclusions  follow  from  its  premises — and  to 
show  how  they  follow.  He  naturally  considers  that  he 
shall  be  suspected  unless  his  account  is  probable  and  con- 
sistent and  he  labors  to  provide  against  that  suspicion.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  who  is  telling  the  truth,  is  apt  to  state 
his  facts  and  leave  them  to  their  fate ;  he  speaks  as  one 
having  authority,  and  cares  not  about  the  why  or  the 
wherefore,  because  it  never  occurs  to  him  that  such  par- 
ticulars are  wanted  to  make  his  statement  credible,  and  ac- 
cordingly, if  such  particulars  are  discoverable  at  all,  it  is 
most  commonly  by  inference,  and  incidentally. 

Now  in  the  verse  of  St.  Matthew,  placed  at  the  head  of 
this  paragraph,  it  is  written  that  "  they  smote  him  with  the 
palms  of  their  hands,  saying,  Prophesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  277 

who  is  he  that  smote  thee  ?"  Had  it  happened  that  the 
records  of  the  other  Evangelists  had  been  lost,  no  critical 
acuteness  could  have  possibly  supplied  by  conjecture  the 
omission  which  occurs  in  this  passage,  and  yet,  without  that 
omission  being  supplied,  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage 
must  forever  have  lain  hid  ;  for  where  is  the  propriety  of 
asking  Christ  to  prophesy  who  smote  him,  when  he  had 
the  offender  before  his  eyes  ?  But  when  we  learn  from  St. 
Luke  (xii.  64)  that  "  the  men  that  held  Jesus  blindfolded 
him"  before  they  asked  him  to  prophesy  who  it  was  that 
smote  him,  we  discover  what  St.  Matthew  intended  to  com- 
municate, namely,  that  they  proposed  this  test  of  his  divine 
mission,  whether,  without  the  use  of  sight,  he  could  tell 
who  it  was  that  struck  him.  Such  an  oversight  as  this  in 
St.  Matthew  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  on  any  other  sup- 
position than  the  truth  of  the  history  itself,  which  set  its 
author  above  all  solicitude  about  securing  the  reception  of 
his  conclusions  by  a  cautious  display  of  the  grounds  whereon 
they  were  built. 


XV. 

WHAT  was  the  charge  on  which  the  Jews  condemned 
Christ  to  death?1 

Familiar  as  this  question  may  at  first  seem,  the  answer 
is  not  so  obvious  as  might  be  supposed.  By  a  careful  pe- 
rusal of  the  trial  of  our  Lord,  as  described  by  the  several 
Evangelists,  it  will  be  found  that  the  charges  were  two,  of 
a  nature  quite  distinct,  and  preferred  with  a  most  appro- 

1  The  following  argument  was  suggested  to  me  by  reading  Wilson's 
"  Illustrations  of  the  Method  of  Explaining  the  New  Testament  by  the 
Early  opinions  of  Jews  and  Christians  concerning  Christ" 

24 


278  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

priate  reference  to  the  tribunals  before  which  they  were 
made. 

Thus  the  first  hearing  was  before  "  the  Chief  Priests 
and  all  the  Council"  a  Jewish  and  ecclesiastical  court ; 
accordingly,  Christ  was  then  accused  of  blasphemy.  "  1 
adjure  thee  by  the  living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether 
thou  be  the  Son  of  God"  said  Caiaphas  to  him,  in  the  hope 
of  convicting  him  out  of  his  own  mouth.  When  Jesus  in 
his  reply  answered  that  he  was,  "  then  the  high-priest  rent 
his  clothes,  saying,  He  hath  spoken  blasphemy  ;  what  fur- 
ther need  have  we  of  witnesses!  behold,  now  ye  have 
heard  his  blasphemy"  (Matt.,  xxvi.  65.) 

Shortly  after,  he  is  taken  before  Pilate,  the  Roman  gov- 
ernor, and  here  the  charge  of  blasphemy  is  altogether  sup- 
pressed, and  that  of  sedition  substituted.  "  And  the  whole 
multitude  of  them  arose,  and  led  him  unto  Pilate  ?  and 
they  began  to  accuse  him,  saying,  We  found  this  fellow 
perverting  the  nation,  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to 
CcBsar,  saying,  that  he  himself  is  Christ,  a  king."  (Luke 
xxiii.  2.)  And  on  this  plea  it  is  that  they  press  his  convic- 
tion, reminding  Pilate,  that  if  he  let  him  go  he  was  not 
Caesar's  friend. 

This  difference  in  the  nature  of  the  accusation,  accord- 
ing to  the  quality  and  characters  of  the  judges,  is  not  forced 
upon  our  notice  by  the  Evangelists,  as  though  they  were 
anxious  to  give  an  air  of  probability  to  their  narrative  by 
such  circumspection  and  attention  to  propriety  •  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  touched  upon  in  so  cursory  and  unemphatic 
a  manner,  as  to  be  easily  overlooked  ;  and  I  venture  to  say, 
that  it  is  actually  overlooked  by  most  readers  of  the  Gos- 
pels. Indeed,  how  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  temper  of  the 
times,  and  of  the  parties  concerned,  such  a  proceeding  xvas, 
can  scarcely  be  perceived  at  first  sight.  The  coincidence, 
therefore,  will  appear  more  striking  if  we  examine  it  some- 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  279 

what  more  closely.  A  charge  of  blasphemy  was,  of  all 
others,  the  best  fitted  to  detach  the  multitude  from  the 
cause  of  Christ ;  and  it  is  only  by  a  proper  regard  to  this 
circumstance,  that  we  can  obtain  the  true  key  to  the  con- 
flicting sentiments  of  the  people  towards  him  ;  one  while 
hailing  him,  as  they  do,  with  rapture,  and  then  again 
striving  to  put  him  to  death. 

Thus  when  Jesus  walked  in  Solomon's  Porch,  the  Jews 
came  round  about  him  and  said  unto  him,  "  If  thou  be  the 
Christ  tell  us  plainly  ? — Jesus  answered  them,  I  told  you, 
and  ye  believed  not."  He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  the 
works  which  testified  of  him,  and  adds,  in  conclusion,  "  I 
and  my  Father  are  one."  The  effect  of  which  words  was 
instantly  this,  that  the  Jews  (i.e.  the  people)  took  up  stones 
to  stone  him,  "  for  blasphemy,  and  because  being  a  man, 
ke  made  himself  God."  (John  x.  33.)  Again  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  St.  John,  we  read  of  five  thousand  men,  who, 
having  witnessed  his  miracles,  actually  acknowledged  him 
as  "  that  prophet  that  should  come  into  the  world/'  nay, 
even  wished  to  take  him  by  force  and  make  him  a  king : 
yet  the  very  next  day,  when  Christ  said  to  these  same 
people,  "This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  from  heav- 
en," they  murmured  at  him,  doubtless  considering  him  to 
lay  claim  to  divinity ;  for  he  replies,  "  Doth  this  offend 
you  ?  what  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up 
where  he  was  before  ?"  expressions,  at  which  such  serious 
offence  was  taken,  that  "from  that  time  many  of  his  dis- 
ciples went  back,  and  walked  with  him  no  more."  So 
that  it  is  not  in  these  days  only  that  men  forsake  Christ 
from  a  reluctance  to  acknowledge  (as  he  demands  of  them) 
his  Godhead.  And  again,  when  Jesus  cured  the  impotent 
man  on  the  Sabbath-day,  and  in  defending  himself  for 
having  so  done,  said,  "ray  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I 
work,"  we  are  told,  "therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more 


280  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    IV. 

to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had  broken  the  Sabbath, 
but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself  equal 
with  God."  (John  v.  18.)  So,  on  another  occasion,  when 
Jesus  had  been  speaking  with  much  severity  in  the  temple, 
we  find  him  unmolested,  till  he  adds,  "  Yerily,  verily.  I  say 
unto  you.  Before  Abraham  was,  /  am,"  (John  viii.  58 ;) 
but  no  sooner  had  he  so  said,  than  "they took  up  stones  to 
cast  at  him."  In  like  manner,  (to  come  to  the  last  scene 
of  his  mortal  life,)  when  he  entered  Jerusalem  he  had  the 
people  in  his  favor,  for  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  "  feared 
them ;"  yet,  very  shortly  after,  the  tide  was  so  turned 
against  him,  that  the  same  people  asked  Barabbas  rather 
than  Jesus.  And  why  ?  As  Messiah  they  were  anxious 
to  receive  him,  which  was  the  character  in  which  he  had 
entered  Jerusalem — but  they  rejected  him  as  the  "  Son  of 
God"  which  was  the  character  in  which  he  stood  before 
them  at  his  trial :  facts  which,  taken  in  a  doctrinal  view, 
are  of  no  small  value,  proving,  as  they  do,  that  the  Jews 
believed  Christ  to  lay  claim  to  divinity,  however  they 
might  dispute  or  deny  the  right.  It  is  consistent,  there- 
fore, with  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospel  history,  that  the 
enemies  of  Christ,  to  gain  their  end  with  the  Jews,  should 
have  actually  accused  him  of  blasphemy,  as  they  are  rep- 
resented to  have  done,  and  should  have  succeeded.  Nor 
is  it  less  consistent  with  that  history,  that  they  should 
have  actually  waived  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  when  they 
brought  him  before  a  Roman  magistrate,  and  substituted 
that  of  sedition  in  its  stead ;  for  the  Roman  governors,  it 
is  well  known,  were  very  indifferent  about  religious  dis- 
putes— they  had  the  toleration  of  men  who  had  no  creed 
of  their  own.  Gallio,  we  hear  in  aftertimes,  "  cared  for 
none  of  these  things  ;"  and.  in  the  same  spirit,  Lysias 
writes  to  Felix  about  Paul,  that  "  he  perceived  him  to  be 
accused  of  questions  concerning  the  law.  but  to  hav* 


JPART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  281 

nothing  laid  to  his  charge  worthy  of  death  or  of  bo?ids.n 
(Acts  xxiii.  29.) 

Indeed,  this  case  of  Paul  serves  in  a  very  remarkable 
manner  to  illustrate  that  of  our  Lord  ;  and  at  the  same 
time  in  itself  furnishes  a  second  coincidence,  founded  upon 
exactly  the  same  facts.  For  the  accusation  brought  against 
Paul  by  his  enemies,  when  they  had  Jews  to  deal  with, 
and,  no  doubt,  that  which  was  brought  against  him  in  the 
Jewish  court,  was  blasphemy  :  "  Men  of  Israel,  this  is 
the  man  that  teacheth  all  men  everywhere  against  the 
people,  and  the  law,  and  this  place."1  But  when  this 
same  Paul,  on  the  same  occasion,  was  brought  before 
Felix,  the  Roman  governor,  the  charge  became  sedition, 
"  We  have  found  this  man  a  pestilent  fellow,  and  a  mover 
of  sedition  among  all  the  Jews  throughout  the  world."2 

It  may  be  remarked,  that  this  is  not  so  much  a  casual 
coincidence  between  parallel  passages  of  several  Evan- 
gelists, as  an  instance  of  singular,  but  undesigned  har- 
mony, amongst  the  various  component  parts  of  one  piece 
of  history,  which  they  all  record  ;  the  proceedings  before 
two  very  different  tribunals  being  represented  in  a  manner 
the  most  agreeable  to  the  known  prejudices  of  all  the  par- 
ties concerned. 


XVI. 

Matth.  xxvi.  71. — "  And  when  he  was  gone  out  into  the 
Porch  (vbv  nvl&va),  another  maid  saw  him,  and  said 
unto  them,  This  man  was  also  with  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth." 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  Peter,  a  stranger,  who  had  en- 
tered the  house  in  the  night,  and  under  circumstances  of 

i  Acts  xxi.  28.  2  Ib.  xxiv.  5.     (See  Riscoe  on  the  Acts,  p.  245.) 

24* 


282  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART  /IV 

some  tumult  and  disorder,  was  thus  singled  out  by  the 
maid  in  the  Porch  ? 

Let  us  turn  to  St.  John,  (ch.  xviii.  ver.  16,)  and  we  shall 
find,  that,  after  Jesus  had  entered,  "  Peter  stood  at  the  door 
without,  till  that  other  disciple  went  out  which  was  known 
unto  the  high-priest,  and  spake  unto  her  that  kept  the 
door,  and  brought  in  Peter."  Thus  was  the  attention  of 
that  girl  directed  to  Peter,  (a  fact  of  which  St.  Matthew 
gives  no  hint  whatever,)  and  thus  we  see  how  it  happened 
that  he  was  recognized  in  the  Porch.  Here  is  a  minute 
indication  of  veracity  in  St.  Matthew,  which  would  have 
been  lost  upon  us  had  not  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  come 
down  to  our  times ; — and  how  many  similar  indications 
may  be  hid,  from  a  want  of  other  contemporary  histories 
with  which  to  make  a  comparison,  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
jecture. 


XVII. 

MY  next  instance  of  coincidence  without  design  is  taken 
from  the  account  of  certain  circumstances  attending  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  And  here  again,  be  it  re- 
marked, an  indication  of  veracity  is  found,  as  formerly, 
where  the  subject  of  the  narrative  is  a  miracle. 

In  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  Mark  we  are  told,  that  Jesus 
said  to  his  disciples,  "  come  ye  yourselves  apart  into  a 
desert  place,"  (it  was  there  where  the  miracle  was  wrought,) 
"  and  rest  a  while ;  for  there  were  many,"  adds  the 
Evangelist,  by  way  of  accounting  for  his  temporary  seclu- 
sion, "  coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so 
much  as  to  eat."  How  it  happened  that  so  many  were 
coming  and  going  through  Capernaum  at  that  time,  above 
all  others,  this  Evangelist  does  not  give  us  the  slightest 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  283 

hint ;  neither  how  it  came  to  pass,  that,  by  retiring  for  a 
while,  Jesus  and  his  disciples  would  escape  the  inconve- 
nience. Turn  we  then  to  the  parallel  passage  in  St.  John, 
and  there  we  shall  find  the  matter  explained  at  once, 
though  certainly  this  explanation  could  never  have  been 
given  with  a  reference  to  the  very  casual  expression  of  St. 
Mark.  In  St.  John  we  do  not  meet  with  one  word  about 
Jesus  retiring  for  a  while  into  the  desert,  for  the  purpose 
of  being  apart,  or  that  he  would  have  been  put  to  any  in- 
convenience by  staying  at  Capernaum,  but  we  are  told, 
(what  perfectly  agrees  with  these  two  circumstances,)  "  that 
the  Passover ,  a  feast  of  the  Jews,  was  nigh"  (vi.  4.) 
Hence,  then,  the  "  coming  and  going"  through  Capernaum 
was  so  unusually  great,  and  hence,  if  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples rested  in  the  desert  "  a  while,"  the  crowd,  which 
was  pressing  towards  Jerusalem  from  every  part  of  the 
country,  would  have  subsided,  and  drawn  off  to  the  capi- 
tal. For  it  may  be  observed  that  the  desert  place  being  at 
some  distance  from  Capernaum,  through  which  city  the 
gr^at  road  lay  from  the  north  to  Jerusalem,  the  multitude 
could  not  follow  Jesus  there  without  some  inconvenience 
and  delay. 

The  confusion  which  prevailed  throughout  the  Holy 
Land  at  this  great  festival  we  may  easily  imagine,  when 
we  read  in  Josephus,1  that,  for  the  satisfaction  of  Nero,  his 
officer,  Cestius,  on  one  occasion,  endeavored  to  reckon  up 
the  number  of  those  who  shared  in  the  national  rite  at 
Jerusalem.  By  counting  the  victims  sacrificed,  and  allow- 
ing a  company  of  ten  to  each  victim,  he  found  that  nearly 
two  millions  six  hundred  thousand  souls  were  present ; 
and  it  may  be  observed,  that  this  method  of  calculation 
would  not  include  the  many  persons  who  must  have  been 

i  Bel.  Jud.  vi.  9.  «  3. 


284  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART  IV. 

disqualified  from  actually  partaking  of  the  sacrifice,  by  the 
places  of  their  birth  and  the  various  causes  of  uncleanness, 
I  cannot  forbear  remarking  another  incident  in  the  trans- 
action we  are  now  considering,  in  itself  a  trifle,  but  not, 
perhaps,  on  that  account,  less  fit  for  corroborating  the  his- 
tory. We  read  in  St.  John,  that  when  Jesus  had  reached 
this  desert  place,  he  "  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  saw  a  great 
multitude  come  unto  him,  and  he  said  unto  Philip, 
Whence  shall  we  buy  bread  that  these  may  eat  ?"  (vi.  5.) 
Why  should  this  question  have  been  directed  to  Philip  in 
particular  ?  If  we  had  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  and  not 
the  other  Gospels,  we  should  see  no  peculiar  propriety  in 
this  choice,  and  should  probably  assign  it  to  accident.  If 
we  had  the  other  Gospels,  and  not  that  of  St.  John,  we 
should  not  be  put  upon  the  inquiry,  for  they  make  no  men- 
tion of  the  question  having  been  addressed  expressly  to 
Philip.  But,  by  comparing  St.  Luke  with  St.  John,  we 
discover  the  reason  at  once.  By  St.  Luke,  and  by  him 
alone,  we  are  informed,  that  the  desert  place  where  the 
miracle  was  wrought  "  was  belonging  to  Bethsaida"  (IK. 
10.)  By  St.  John  we  are  informed,  (although  not  in  the 
passage  where  he  relates  the  miracle,  which  is  worthy  of 
remark,  but  in  another  chapter  altogether  independent  of 
it,  ch.i.  44,)  that  "  Philip  was  of  Bethsaida."  To  whom 
then,  could  the  question  have  been  directed  so  properly  as 
to  him,  who,  being  of  the  immediate  neighborhood,  was 
the  most  likely  to  know  where  bread  was  to  be  bought  ? 
Here  again,  then,  I  maintain,  we  have  strong  indications  of 
veracity  in  the  case  of  a  miracle  itself;  and  I  leave  it  to 
others,  who  may  have  ingenuity  and  inclination  for  the  task, 
to  weed  out  the  falsehood  of  the  miracle  from  the  manifest 
reaiity  of  the  circumstances  which  attend  it,  arid  to  sepa- 
rate fiction  from  fact,  which  is  in  the  very  closest  combina- 
tion with  it. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  285 


XVIII. 

Mark  xv.  21. — "  And  they  compel  one  Simon,  a  Cyrenian, 
who  passed  by,  coming  out  of  the  country,  the  father 
of  Alexander  and  Rufus,  to  bear  his  cross." 

CLEMENT  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  about  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  declares,  that  Mark  wrote  this  Gospel 
on  St.  Peter's  authority  at  Rome.  Jerome,  who  lived  in 
the  fourth  century,  says,  that  Mark,  the  disciple  and  inter- 
preter of  St.  Peter,  being  requested  by  his  brethren  at 
Rome,  wrote  a  short  Gospel. 

Now  this  circumstance  may  account  for  his  designating 
Simon  as  the  father  of  Rufus  at  least ;  for  we  find  that  a 
disciple  of  that  name,  and  of  considerable  note,  was  resi- 
dent at  Rome,  when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  "  Salute  Rufus"  says  he,  "  chosen  in  the 
Lord"  (xvi.  13.)  Thus,  by  mentioning  a  man  living  upon 
the  spot  where  he  was  writing,  and  amongst  the  people 
whom  he  addressed,  Mark  was  giving  a  reference  for  the 
truth  of  his  narrative,  which  must  have  been  accessible 
and  satisfactory  to  all ;  since  Rufus  could  not  have  failed 
knowing  the  particulars  of  the  crucifixion,  (the  great  event 
to  which  the  Christians  looked,)  when  his  father  had  been 
so  intimately  concerned  in  it  as  to  have  been  the  reluctant 
bearer  of  the  cross. 

Of  course,  the  force  of  this  argument  depends  on  the 
identity  of  the  Rufus  of  St.  Mark  and  the  Rufus  of  St. 
Paul,  which  I  have  no  means  of  proving  :l  but  admitting 
it  to  be  probable  that  they  were  the  same  persons,  (which, 
I  think,  may  be  admitted,  for  St.  Paul,  we  see,  expressly 
speaks  of  a  distinguished  disciple  of  the  name  of  Rufus  at 
Rome,  and  St.  Mark,  writing  for  the  Romans,  mentions 

i  See  Michaelis,  Vol.  in.  p.  213. 


286  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    IV. 

Rufus,  the  son  of  Simon,  as  well  known  to  them,) — admit- 
ting this,  the  coincidence  is  striking,  and  serves  to  account 
for  what  otherwise  seems  a  piece  of  purely  gratuitous  and 
needless  information  offered  by  St.  Mark  to  his  readers, 
namely,  that  Simon  was  the  father  of  Alexander  and 
Rufus  ;  a  fact  omitted  by  the  other  Evangelists,  and  appa- 
rently turned  to  no  advantage  by  himself. 


XIX. 

Mark  xv.  25. — "  And  it  was  the  third  hour,  and  they  cru- 
cified him." 
33. — "And  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come,  there  was 

darkness  over  the  whole  land  until  the  ninth  hour." 
IT  has  been  observed  to  me  by  an  intelligent  friend,  who 
has  turned  his  attention  to  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
Gospels,  that  it  will  be  found,  on  examination,  that  the 
scoffs  and  insults  which  were  levelled  at  our  Saviour  on  the 
cross,.were  all  during  the  early  part  of  the  crucifixion, 
and  that  a  manifest  change  of  feeling  towards  him,  arising, 
as  it  should  seem,  from  a  certain  misgiving  as  to  his  char- 
acter, is  discoverable  in  the  bystanders  as  the  scene  drew 
nearer  to  its  close :  I  think  the  remark  just  and  valuable. 
It  is  at  the  first  that  we  read  of  those  "  who  passed  by 
railing  on  him,  and  wagging  their  heads,"  (Mark  xv.  &9 ;) 
of  "  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  mocking  him,"  31 ;  of 
"  those  that  were  crucified  with  him  reviling  him,"  32  ;  of 
the  "  soldiers  mocking  him  and  offering  him  vinegar," 
(Luke  xxiii.  36,)  pointing  out  to  him  most  likely,  the  "  ves- 
sel of  vinegar  which  was  set,"  or  holding  a  portion  of  it 
beyond  his  reach,  by  way  of  aggravating  the  pains  of  in- 
tense thirst,  which  must  have  attended  this  lingering  mode 
of  death  : — that  all  this  occurred  at  the  beginning  of  the 


PART    IV.  THE    GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  287 

Passion  is  the  natural  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the 
narratives  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke. 

But,  during  the  latter  part  of  it,  we  hear  nothing  of  this 
kind  ;  on  the  contrary,  when  Jesus  cried,  "  I  thirst,"  there 
was  no  mockery  offered,  but  a  sponge  was  filled  with  vin- 
egar, and  put  on  a  reed  and  applied  to  his  lips,  with  re- 
markable alacrity ;  "  one  ran"  and  did  it,  (Mark  xv.  31 :) 
and,  from  the  misunderstanding  of  the  words  "  Eli,  Eli," 
it  is  clear  that  the  spectators  had  some  suspicion  that  Elias 
might  come  to  take  him  down.  Do  not,  then,  these  cir- 
cumstances accord  remarkably  well  with  the  alleged  fact, 
that  "  there  was  darkness  over  all  the  land  from  the  sixth 
to  the  ninth  hour  ?"  (Matth.  xxvii.  45 ;)  Mark  xv.  33.  Is 
not  this  change  of  conduct  in  the  merciless  crew  that  sur- 
rounded the  cross  very  naturally  explained,  by  the  awe 
with  which  they  contemplated  the  gloom  as  it  took  effect  ? 
and  does  it  not  strongly,  though  undesignedly.  confirm  the 
assertion,  that  such  a  fearful  darkness  there  actually  was  ? 


XX. 

Mark  xv.  43. — "  And  Joseph  of  Arimathsea,  an  honorable 
counsellor,  which  also  waited  for  the  kingdom  of  God, 
came,  and  went  in  boldly  unto  Pilate,  and  craved  the 
body  of  Jesus." 

IT  is  evident  that  the  courage  of  Joseph  on  this  occasion 
had  impressed  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist — he  "  went  in 
boldly"  Tolft^aag  eio^Ws — he  had  the  boldness  to  go  in- — 
he  ventured  to  go  in. 

Now  by  comparing  the  parallel  passage  in  St.  John,  we 
very  distinctly  trace  the  train  of  thought  which  was  work- 
ing in  St.  Mark's  mind  when  he  used  this  expression,  but 
which  would  have  entirely  escaped  us,  together  with  the 


288  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV 

evidence  it  furnishes  for  the  truth  of  the  narrative,  had  not 
the  Gospel  oT  St.  John  come  down  to  us.  For  there  we 
read  (xix.  38),  "  And  after  this  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  being 
a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  be- 
sought Pilate  that  he  might  take  away  the  body  of  Jesus." 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  Joseph  was  known  to  be  a 
timid  disciple ;  which  made  his  conduct  on  the  present 
occasion  seem  to  St.  Mark  remarkable,  and  at  variance 
with  his  ordinary  character ;  for  there  might  be  supposed 
some  risk  in  manifesting  an  interest  in  the  corpse  of  Jesus, 
whom  the  Jews  had  just  persecuted  to  the  death. 

Moreover,  it  may  be  observed  that  St.  John,  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us,  continues,  "  And  there  came  also  Nicodemus, 
which  at  the  first  came  to  Jesus  by  night,  and  brought  a 
mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes" — as  though  the  timid  char- 
acter of  Joseph  was  uppermost  in  his  thoughts  too,  (though 
he  says  nothing  of  his  going  in  boldly,)  and  suggested  to 
him  Nicodemus,  and  what  he  did  ;  another  disciple  of  the 
same  class  as  Joseph ;  and  whose  constitutional  failing  he 
does  intimate,  occurred  to  him  at  the  moment,  by  the  no- 
tice that  it  was  the  same  who  had  come  to  Jesus  by  night. 

I  will  add,  that  both  these  cases  of  Joseph  and  Nicode- 
mus bear  upon  the  coincidence  in  the  last  Number ;  for 
whence  did  these  fearful  men  derive  their  courage  on  this 
occasion,  but  from  having  witnessed  the  circumstances 
which  attended  the  crucifixion  ? 


XXI. 

Luke  vi.  1,  2. — "And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  second  Sab* 
bath  after  the  first,  (iv  aafipfau  d8vrego7rQ(biu,)  that  he 
went  through  the  corn-fields  ;  and  his  disciples  plucked 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  289 

the  ears  of  corn,  and  did  eat,  rubbing  them  in  their 
hands.  And  certain  of  the  Pharisees  said,"  &c. 

THIS  transaction  occurred  on  the  first  Sabbath  after  the 
second  day  of  unleavened  bread ;  on  which  day  the  wave 
sheaf  was  offered,  as  the  first  fruits  of  the  harvest;1  and 
from  which  day  the  fifty  days  were  reckoned  to  the  Pen- 
tecost. 

Is  it  not  therefore  very  natural  that  this  conversation 
should  have  taken  place  at  this  time,  and  that  St.  Luke 
should  have  especially  given  the  date  of  the  conversation, 
as  well  as  the  conversation  itself? 

It  being  the  first  Sabbath  after  the  day  when  the  first 
fruits  of  the  corn  were  cut,  accords  perfectly  with  the  fact 
that  the  disciples  should  be  walking  through  fields  of  stand- 
ing corn  at  that  season. 

The  Rite,  which  had  just  then  been  celebrated,  an  epc  :h 
in  the  church,  as  well  as  an  epoch  in  the  year,  naturally 
turned  the  minds  of  all  the  parties  here  concerned  to  the 
subject  of  corn — the  Pharisees,  to  find  cause  for  cavil  in  it 
— Jesus,  to  find  cause  for  instruction  in  it — St.  Luke  to 
find  cause  for  especially  naming  the  second  Sabbath  after 
the  first)  as  the  period  of  the  incident.  And  yet,  be  it  ob- 
served, no  connection  is  pointed  out  between  the  time  and 
the  transaction,  either  in  the  conversation  itself,  or  in  the 
Evangelist's  history  of  it.  That  is,  there  is  coincidence 

without  design  in  both. 

i 

XXII. 

Luke  ix.  53. — "And  they  did  not  receive  him,  because  his 

face  was  as  though  he  would  go  to  Jerusalem" 
JESUS  was  then  going  to  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem,  and 
was  therefore  plainly  acknowledging  that  men  ought  to 

1  Lev.  xxiii.  10,  11,  12. 

25 


290  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    IV. 

worship  there,  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Samaritans, 
who  had  set  up  the  Temple  at  Gerizim,  in  opposition  to 
that  of  the  Holy  City.  That  this  was  the  cause  of  irrita- 
tion is  implied  in  the  expression,  that  they  would  not  re- 
ceive him,  "because  his  face  was  as  though  he  would  go 
to  Jerusalem"  Let  us  observe,  then,  how  perfectly  this 
account  harmonizes  with  that  which  St.  John  gives  of  Je- 
sus' interview  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  at  the  well. 
Then  Jesus  was  coming  from  Judsea,  and  at  a  season  of 
the  year  when  no  suspicion  could  attach  to  him  of  having 
been  at  Jerusalem  for  devotional  purposes,  for  it  wanted 
"  four  months  before  the  harvest  should  come,"  and  with  it 
the  Passover.  Accordingly,  on  this  occasion,  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  were  treated  with  civility  and  hospitality  by  the 
Samaritans.  They  purchased  bread  in  the  town  without 
being  exposed  to  any  insults,  and  they  were  even  requested 
to  tarry  with  them. 

I  cannot  but  think  that  the  stamp  of  truth  is  very  visible 
in  all  this.  It  was  natural,  that  at  certain  seasons  of  the 
year  (at  the  great  feasts)  this  jealous  spirit  should  be  ex- 
cited, which  at  others  might  be  dormant ;  and  though  it  is 
not  expressly  stated  by  the  one  Evangelist,  that  the  insult 
of  the  villagers  was  at  a  season  when  it  might  be  expected, 
yet  from  a  casual  expression,  (ver.  51,)  such  may  be  in- 
ferred to  have  been  the  case.  And  though  it  is  not  ex- 
pressly stated  by  the  other  Evangelist,  that  the  hospitality 
of  the  Samaritans  wras  exercised  at  a  more  propitious  sea- 
son of  the  year,  yet  by  an  equally  casual  expression  in  the 
course  of  the  chapter,  (ver.  35,)  that,  too,  is  ascertained  to 
have  been  the  fact.  Surely,  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
most  artful  imposture  to  observe  so  strict  a  propriety  even 
in  the  subordinate  parts  of  the  scheme,  especially  where  less 
distinctness  of  detail  would  scarcely  have  excited  suspicion ; 
and  surely  it  is  a  circumstance  most  satisfactory  to  every 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  291 

reasonable  mind  to  discover,  that  the  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  that  Gospel  (on  which  our  hopes  are  anchored)  is,  not 
only  the  more  conspicuous  the  more  minutely  it  is  exam- 
ined, but  that,  without  such  examination,  full  justice  can- 
not be  done  to  the  variety  and  pregnancy  of  its  proofs. 


XXIII. 

John  ii.  7. — "  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Fill  the  water-pots 

with  water." 

THERE  appears  to  me  to  be  in  this  passage  an  unde- 
signed coincidence,  very  slight  and  trivial  indeed  in  its 
character,  but  not  on  that  account  less  valuable  as  a  mark 
of  truth.  These  water-pots  had  to  be  filled  before  Jesus 
could  perform  the  miracle.  It  follows,  therefore,  rtiat  they 
had  been  emptied  of  their  contents — the  watt*  had  been 
drawn  out  of  them.  But  for  what  purpose  was  it  used, 
and  why  were  these  vessels  here  ?  It  wa^  for  purifying. 
For  "  all  the  Jews,"  as  St.  Mark  tells  us  mare  at  large  (vii.  3), 
"except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the 
tradition  of  the  elders."  The  vessels  therefore  being  now 
empty,  indicates  that  the  guests  h?d  done  with  them — that 
the  meat  therefore  was  advanced ;  for  it  was  before  they 
sat  down  to  it  that  they  perfo»nied  their  ablutions — a  cir- 
cumstance which  accords  wfch  the  moment  when  our  Lord 
is  represented  as  doing  tfrs  miracle  ;  for  the  governor  of 
the  feast  said  to  the  bridegroom,  "  Every  man  at  the  be- 
ginning doth  set  forth  good  wine, — but  thou  hast  kept  the 
good  wine  until  now"  It  is  satisfactory,  that  in  the  record 
of  a  great  miracle,  like  this,  the  minor  circumstances  in 
connection  with  it  should  be  in  keeping  with  one  another. 


29'2  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    IV. 


XXIV. 

John  iii.  1,  2. — "  There  was  a  man  of  the  Pharisees,  named 
Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews  :  The  same  came  to 
Jesus  by  night,  and  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,"  &c. 
IT  is  a  remarkable  and  characteristic  feature  of  the  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord,  that  they  are  often  prompted,  or  shaped, 
or  illustrated,  by  the  event  of  the  moment ;  by  some  scene 
or  incident  that  presented  itself  to  him  at  the  time  he  was 
speaking.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  give  examples  of  a 
fact  so  undisputed.  Thus  it  was  the  day  after  the  miracle 
of  the  loaves,  and  it  was  to  the  persons  who  had  witnessed 
that  miracle,  and  profited  by  it.  that  Jesus  said,  "  Labor  not 
for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  that  meat  which  en- 
dureth  'into  everlasting  life."1  &c.  And  much  more  to  the 
same  effect.  It  was  at  Jacob's  well,  and  in  reply  to  the 
question  of  *,he  woman,  "  How  is  it  that  thou,  being  a  Jew, 
askest  drink  cf  me,  which  am  a  woman  of  Samaria  ?"2  that 
Jesus  spake  so  much  at  large  of  the  water  whereof  "  who- 
soever drank  should  never  thirst,"  &c.  It  was  whilst  tar- 
rying in  this  same  inral  spot,  that  calling  the  attention  of 
his  disciples  to  the  sctne  around  them,  he  said,  "  Say  not 
ye,  There  are  yet  four  ifconths,  and  then  cometh  harvest? 
behold,  I  say  unto  you,  \Aft  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on 
the  fields,  for  they  are  white  already  to  harvest  ;"3  and 
he  then  goes  on  to  remind  then  of  sowing  and  reaping  to 
be  done  in  another  and  higher  &>nse.  These  are  the  few 
instances  out  of  many  which  migU  be  produced,  where  the 
incident  that  gave  rise  to  the  remarks  is  actually  related  ; 
and  by  which  the  habit  of  our  Lord's  Discourse  is  proved  to 
be  such  as  I  have  described.  But  in  other  places,  the  incident 
itself  is  omitted,  and  but  for  some  casual  expression  which 

»  John  vi.  27  *  Ib.  iv.  9.  3  ib.  iv.  35. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  293 

is  let  fall,  it  would  be  impossible  to  connect  the  discourse 
with  it ;  by  means,  however,  of  some  such  expression,  ap- 
parently intended  to  serve  no  such  purpose,  we  are  enabled 
to  get  at  the  incident,  and  so  discover  the  propriety  of  the 
discourse.  In  such  cases  we  are  furnished  once  more  with 
the  argument  of  coincidence  without  design — as  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage:  "In  the  last  day.  that  great  day  of  the 
feast,  Jesus  stood  and  cried,  saying.  If  any  man  thirst,  let 
him  come  unto  me,  and  drink.  He  that  believeth  on  me, 
as  the  Scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers 
of  living  water •,"*  &c.  Now  but  for  the  expression,  "  In  the 
last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast,"  we  should  have  been 
at  a  loss  to  know  the  circumstances  in  which  that  speech 
of  our  Lord  originated.  But  the  day  when  it  was  delivered 
being  named,  we  are  enabled  to  gather  from  other  sources, 
that  on  that  day,  the  eighth  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  it 
was  a  custom  to  offer  to  God  a  pot  of  water  drawn  from  the 
pool  of  Siloam.  Coupling  this  fact,  therefore,  with  our 
Lord's  practice,  already  established  by  other  evidence,  of 
allowing  the  spectacle  before  him  to  give  the  turn  to  his 
address,  we  may  conclude  that  he  spake  these  words  whilst 
he  happened  to  be  observing  the  ceremony  of  the  water- 
pot.  And  an  argument  thus  arises,  that  the  speech  here 
reported  is  genuine,  and  was  really  delivered  by  our  Lord. 
The  passage  then  in  St.  John,  with  which  I  have  head- 
ed this  paragraph,  furnishes  testimony  of  the  same  kind. 
It  describes  Nicodemus  as  coming  to  Jesus  by  night — fear, 
no  doubt,  prompting  him  to  use  this  secrecy.  Now  observe 
9,  good  deal  of  the  language  which  Jesus  directs  to  him — 
tt  And  this  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the 
world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light,  because 
their  deeds  are  evil.  For  every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth 
the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should 
i  John  vii.  37,  38. 

25* 


294 


THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    IV. 


be  reproved.  But  he  that  doeth  truth,  cometh  to  the  light 
that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest,  that  they  are  wrought 
in  God  (vers.  19,  22).  When  we  remember  that  the  in- 
terview was  a  nocturnal  one,  and  that  Jesus  was  accus- 
tomed to  speak  with  a  reference  to  the  circumstances  about 
him  at  the  instant,  what  more  natural  than  the  turn  of 
this  discourse  ?  What  more  satisfactory  evidence  could 
we  have,  than  this  casual  evidence,  that  the  visit  was  paid, 
and  the  speech  spoken,  as  St.  John  describes?  that  his 
narrative,  in  short,  is  true  ?x 

XXV. 

John  iv.  5. — "  Then  cometh  he  to  a  city  of  Samaria,  which 

is  called  Sychar."' 

HERE  Jesus  converses  with  the  woman  at  the  well. 
She  perceives  that  he  is  a  prophet.  She  suspects  that  he 
may  be  the  Christ.  She  spreads  her  report  of  him  through 
the  city.  The  inhabitants  are  awakened  to  a  lively  in- 
terest about  him.  Jesus  is  induced  to  tarry  there  two 
days ;  and  it  was  probably  the  favorable  disposition  to- 
wards him  which  he  found  to  prevail  there,  that  drew  from 
him  at  that  very  time  the  observation  to  his  disciples,  "Say 
not  ye,  There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh  har- 
vest? behold,  I  say  unto  you,  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look 
on  the  fields  ;  for  they  are  white  already  to  harvest.  And 
he  that  reapeth  receiveth  wages,  and  gathereth  fruit  unto 
life  eternal :  that  both  he  that  soweth  and  he  that  reap- 
eth may  rejoice  together.  And  herein  is  that  saying  true, 
One  soweth  and  another  reapeth.  I  sent  you  to  reap  that 
whereon  ye  bestowed  no  labor :  other  men  labored,  and  ye 
are  entered  into  their  labors."  It  is  the  favorable  state  of 

1  I  was  put  upon  this  coincidence  by  a  passage  which  I  heard  in  one  of 
Mr.  Marsden's  Hulsean  Lectures. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  295 

Samaria  for  the  reception  of  the  Gospel,  that  suggests 
these  reflections  to  Jesus,  he,  no  doubt,  perceiving  that  God 
had  much  "  people  in  that  city." 

Such  is  the  picture  of  the  religious  state  of  Sychar  pre- 
sented in  the  narrative  of  St.  John. 

Now  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  confirms 
the  truth  of  this  statement  in  a  remarkable  but  most  unin- 
tentional manner.  From  him  we  learn,  that  at  a  period 
a  few  years  later  than  this,  and  after  the  death  of  Jesus. 
Philip,  one  of  the  deacons,  "  went  down  to  the  city  of  Sa- 
maria," (the  emphatic  expression  marks  it  to  have  been 
Sychar,  the  capital,)  "  and  preached  Christ  among  them." 
(Acts  viii.  5.)  His  success  was  just  what  might  have  been 
expected  from  the  account  we  have  read  in  St.  John  of  the 
previous  state  of  public  opinion  at  Sychar.  "  The  people 
with  one  accord  gave  heed  to  those  things  which  Philip 
spake,')  <ver.  6  ;)  and  "  when  they  believed  Philip  preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women,"  (ver.  12.)  It  is  evident  that  these  histories  are 
not  got  up  to  corroborate  one  another.  It  is  not  at  all  an 
obvious  thought,  or  one  likely  to  present  itself  to  an  im- 
postor, that  it  might  be  prudent  to  fix  upon  Sychar  as  the 
imaginary  scene  of  Philip's  successful  labors,  seeing  that 
Jesus  had  been  well  received  there  some  years  before ;  at 
least  in  such  a  case  some  allusion  or  reference  would  have 
been  made  to  this  disposition  previously  evinced  ;  it  would 
not  have  been  left  to  the  reader  to  discover  it  or  not,  as  it 
might  happen,  where  the  chance  was  so  great  that  it 
would  be  overlooked.  Moreover,  his  recollections  of  the 
passage  in  St.  John  would  probably  have  been  studiously 
arrested  by  the  use  of  the  same  word  "  Sychar,"  rather 
than  "  the  city  of  Samaria,"  as  designating  the  field  of 
Philip's  labors. 


296  THE    VERACITY   OP   THE  PART    IV 

XXVI. 

John  vi.  16. — "And  when  even  was  now  come,  his  dis« 
ciples  went  down  into  the  sea,  and  entered  into  a  ship, 
and  went  over  the  sea  toward  Capernaum.  And  it 
was  now  dark,  and  Jesus  was  not  come  to  them. 
And  the  sea  arose  by  reason  of  a  great  wind  that 
blew.  So  when  they  had  rowed  about  five-and-twent}^ 
or  thirty  furlongs,  they  see  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea, 
and  drawing  nigh  unto  the  ship,  and  they  were  afraid. 
But  he  saith  unto  them,  It  is  I ;  be  not  afraid.  Then 
they  willingly  received  him  into  the  ship,  and  imme- 
diately the  ship  was  at  the  land  whither  they  went. 
The  day  following,  when  the  people  which  stood  on 
the  other  side  of  the  sea  saw  that  there  was  none 
other  boat  there,  save  that  one  whereinto  his  dis- 
ciples were  entered,  and  that  Jesus  went  not  with  his 
disciples  into  the  boat,  but  that  his  disciples  were  gone 
away  alone  ;  (howbeit  there  came  other  boats  from 
Tiberias  nigh  unto  the  place  where  they  did  eat 
bread,  after  that  the  Lord  had  given  thanks  :}  when 
the  people  therefore  saw  that  Jesus  was  not  there, 
neither  his  disciples,  they  also  took  shipping,  and  came 
to  Capernaum,  seeking  for  Jesus.  And  when  they 
had  found  him  on  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  they  said 
unto  him,  Rabbi,  when  earnest  thou  hither  ?" 

Matt.  xiv.  22. — "  And  straightway  Jesus  constrained  his 
disciples  to  get  into  a  ship,  and  to  go  before  him  unto 
the  other  side,  while  he  sent  the  multitudes  away. 
And  when  he  had  sent  the  multitudes  away,  he  went 
up  into  a  mountain  apart  to  pray  :  and  when  the 
evening  was  come,  he  was  there  alone.  But  the  ship 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  297 

was  now  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  tossed  with  the 
waves :  for  the  wind  was  contrary" 

IT  appears  from  St.  John,  that  the  people  thought  that 
Jesus  was  still  on  the  side  of  the  lake  where  the  mira- 
cle had  been  wrought.  And  this  they  inferred  because 
there  was  no  other  boat  on  the  preceding  evening,  except 
that  in  which  the  disciples  had  gone  over  to  Capernaum 
on  the  other  side,  and  they  had  observed  that  Jesus  went 
not  with  them.  It  is  added,  however,  that,  "  there  came 
other  boats  from  Tiberias"  (which  was  on  the  same  side 
as  Capernaum,)  nigh  unto  the  place  where  the  Lord  had 
given  thanks.  Now  why  might  they  not  have  supposed 
that  Jesus  had  availed  himself  of  one  of  these  return- 
boats,  and  so  made  his  escape  in  the  night?  St.  John 
gives  no  reason  why  they  did  not  make  this  obvious  in- 
ference. Let  us  turn  to  St.  Matthew's  account  of  the  same 
transaction,  (which  I  have  placed  at  the  head  of  this  para- 
graph,) and  we  speedily  learn  why  they  could  not.  In 
this  account  we  find  it  recorded,  not  simply  that  the  dis- 
ciples were  in  distress  in  consequence  of  the  sea  arising 
"  by  reason  of  a  great  wind  that  blew,"  but  it  is  further 
stated,  that  "  the  wind  was  contrary"  i.  e.  the  wind  was 
blowing  from  Capernaum  and  Tiberias,  and  therefore  not 
only  might  the  ships  readily  come  from  Tiberias,  (the  in- 
cident mentioned  by  St.  John,)  a  course  for  which  the  wind 
(though  violent)  was  fair,  but  the  multitude  might  well 
conclude  that  with  such  a  wind  Jesus  could  not  have 
used  one  of  those  return-boats,  and  therefore  must  still  be 
amongst  them. 

Indeed,  nothing  can  be  more  probable  than  that  these 
ships  from  Tiberias  were  fishing  vessels,  which,  having 
been  overtaken  by  the  storm,  suffered  themselves  to  be 
driven  before  the  gale,  to  the  opposite  coast,  where  they 
might  find  shelter  for  the  night;  for  what  could  such  a 


298  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

number  of  boats,  as  sufficed  to  convey  the  people  across, 
(ver.  24,)  have  been  doing  at  this  desert  place,  neither  port, 
nor  town,  nor  market?  so  that  here  again  is  another 
instance  of  undesigned  consistency  in  the  narrative ;  the 
very  fact  of  a  number  of  boats  resorting  to  this  "desert 
place,"  at  the  close  of  day,  strongly  indicating  (though  most 
incidentally)  that  the  sea  actually  was  rising,  (as  St.  John 
asserts,)  "  by  reason  of  a  great  wind  that  blew." 

I  further  think  this  to  be  the  correct  view  of  a  passage 
of  some  intricacy,  from  considering,  first,  the  question  which 
the  people  put  to  Jesus  on  finding  him  at  Capernaum  the 
next  day.  Full  as  they  must  have  been  of  the  miracle 
which  they  had  lately  witnessed,  and  anxious  to  see  the  rep- 
etition of  works  so  wonderful,  their  first  inquiry  is,  "  Rabbi, 
when  earnest  thou  hither  ?"  surely  an  inquiry  not  of  mere 
form,  but  manifestly  implying,  that,  under  the  circum- 
stances, it  could  only  have  been  by  some  extraordinary 
means  that  he  had  passed  across  ;  and  second,  from  observ- 
ing the  satisfactory  explanation  it  affords  of  the  parenthesis 
of  St.  John,  "  howbeit  there  came  other  boats  from  Tibe- 
rias? ....  which  no  longer  seems  a  piece  of  purely  gra- 
tuitous and  irrelevant  information,  but  turns  out  to  be 
equivalent  with  the  expression  in  St.  Matthew,  that  the 
"  wind  was  contrary ;"  though  the  point  is  not  directly 
asserted,  but  only  a  fact  is  mentioned  from  which  such  an 
assertion  naturally  follows. 

It  might  indeed  be  said,  that  the  circumstance  of  the 
ships  coming  from  Tiberias  was  mentioned  for  the  purpose 
of  explaining  how  the  people  could  take  shipping,  (as  they 
are  stated  to  have  done  to  go  to  Capernaum,)  when  it  had 
been  before  affirmed  that  there  was  no  other  boat  there 
save  that  into  which  the  disciples  were  entered.  Such  cau- 
tion, however,  I  do  not  think  at  all  agreeable  to  the  spirit 
of  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists,  who  are  always  very 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  299 

careless  about  consequences,  not  troubling  themselves  to 
obviate  or  explain  the  difficulties  of  their  narrative.  But, 
whatever  may  be  judged  of  this  matter,  the  main  argu- 
ment remains  the  same  ;  and  a  minute  coincidence  between 
St.  John  and  St.  Matthew  is  made  out,  of  such  a  nature  as 
precludes  all  suspicion  of  collusion,  and  shows  consistency 
in  the  two  histories  without  the  smallest  design. 

And  here  again  I  will  repeat  the  observation,  which  I 
have  already  had  occasion  more  than  once  to  make — that 
the  truth  of  the  general  narrative  in  some  degree  involves 
the  truth  of  a  miracle.  For  if  we  are  satisfied  by  the  un- 
designed coincidence,  that  St.  Matthew  was  certainly  speak- 
ing truth  when  he  said,  the  wind  was  "  boisterous,"  how 
shall  we  presume  to  assert,  that  he  speaks  truth  no  longer, 
when  he  tells  us  in  the  same  breath  that  Jesus  "  walked  on 
the  sea,"  in  the  midst  of  that  very  storm,  and  that  when 
"  he  came  into  the  ship  the  wind  ceased  ?" 

Doubtless,  the  one  fact  does  not  absolutely  prove  the 
others,  but  in  all  ordinary  cases,  where  one  or  two  particu- 
lars in  a  body  of  evidence  are  so  corroborated  as  to  be  placed 
above  suspicion,  the  rest,  though  not  admitting  of  the  like 
corroboration,  are  nevertheless  received  without  dispute. 


XXVII. 

THE  events  of  the  last  week  of  our  Saviour's  earthly  life, 
as  recorded  by  the  Evangelists,  will  furnish  us  with  sev- 
eral arguments  of  the  kind  we  are  collecting. 
1'.  John  xii.  1. — "  Then  Jesus  six  days  before  the  Pass- 
over came  to  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  was." 

Bethany  was  a  village  at  the  mount  of  Olives  (Mark 
xi.  I),  near  Jerusalem  ;  and  it  was  in  his  approacji  to  that 
city,  to  keep  the  last  Passover  and  die,  that  Jesus  now 


300  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

lodged  there  for  the  night,  meaning  to  enter  the  capital  the 
next  day.     (John  xii.  12.) 

St.  John  tells  us  no  more  of  the  movements  of  Jesus  on 
this  occasion  with  precision  j  however,  this  one  date  will 
suffice  to  verify  his  narrative,  as  well  as  that  of  St.  Mark. 
Turn  we  then  to  the  latter,  who  gives  us  an  account  of 
the  proceedings  of  Jesus  immediately  before  his  crucifixion 
more  in  detail ;  or  rather,  enables  us  to  infer  for  ourselves 
what  they  were,  from  phrases  which  escape  from  him  ;  and 
we  shall  find  that  the  two  narratives  are  very  consistent 
with  respect  to  them,  though  it  is  very  evident  that  neither 
narrative  is  at  all  dressed  by  the  other,  but  that  both  are  so 
constructed  as  to  argue  independent  knowledge  of  the  facts 
in  the  Evangelists  themselves. 

In  Mark  xi.  1,  we  read,  "  And  when  they  came  nigh  to 
Jerusalem,  unto  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  of 
Olives,  he  sendeth  forth  two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Go  your  way  into  the  village  over  against  you,"  &c. 
The  internal  evidence  of  this  whole  transaction  implies, 
that  the  disciples  were  dispatched  on  this  errand  the  morn- 
ing after  they  had  arrived  at  Bethany,  where  Jesus  had 
lodged  for  the  night,  and  not  the  evening  before,  on  the  in- 
stant of  his  arrival ;  the  events  of  the  day  being  much  too 
numerous  to  be  crowded  into  the  latter  period  of  time — the 
procuring  the  ass,  the  triumphant  procession  to  Jerusalem, 
the  visit  to  the  temple,  all  filling  up  that  day ;  and  its  being 
expressly  said,  when  all  these  transactions  were  concluded, 
that  "the  even-tide  was  come,"  (ver.  11) ;  and  this  internal 
evidence  entirely  accords  with  the  direct  assertion  of  St. 
John  (xii.  12),  that  it  was  "  the  next  day."  Accordingly, 
this  day  closed  with  Jesus  "looking  round  about  upon  all 
things,"  in  the  Temple  (ver.  11),  and  then  "  when  the  even- 
tide was  come,  going  out  unto  Bethany  with  the  twelve." 
This  then  was  the  second  day  Jesus  lodged  at  Bethany,  as 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  301 

we  gather  from  St.  Mark.  "  On  the  morrow,  as  they  were 
coming1  from  Bethany"  Jesus  cursed  the  fig-tree  (ver.  13) ; 
proceeded  to  Jerusalem  ;  spent  the  day,  as  before,  in  Jeru- 
salem and  the  temple,  casting  out  of  it  the  money-chang- 
ers ;  and  again,  "  when  even  was  come  he  went  out  of  the 
city,"  (ver.  19,)  certainly  returning  to  Bethany ;  for  though 
this  is  not  said,  the  fact  is  clear,  from  the  tenor  of  the  next 
paragraph.  This  was  the  third  day  Jesus  lodged  at  Beth- 
any, according  to  St.  Mark. 

"  In  the  morning,  as  they  passed  by,  they  saw  the  fig- 
tree  dried  up  from  the  roots"  (ver.  20),  i.  e.  they  were  pro- 
ceeding by  the  same  road  as  the  morning  before,  and  there- 
fore from  Bethany,  again  to  spend  the  day  at  Jerusalem, 
and  in  the  temple  (ver.  27 ;  xii.  41) ;  Jesus  employing  him- 
self there  in  enunciating  parables  and  answering  cavils. 
After  this  "he  went  out  of  the  temple,"  (xiii.  1,)  to  return 
once  more,  no  doubt,  the  evening  being  come,  to  Bethany ; 
for  though  this  again  is  not  asserted,  it  is  clearly  to  be  in- 
ferred, which  is  better,  since  we  immediately  afterwards  find 
Jesus  sitting  with  the  disciples,  and  talking  with  several  of 
them  privately,  "  on  the  mount  of  Olives"  (ver.  3),  which 
lay  in  his  road  to  Bethany.  This  was  the  fourth  day  ac- 
cording to  St.  Mark.  St.  Mark  next  says,  "After  two  days 
was  the  feast  of  the  Passover."  (xiv.  1.) 

This,  then,  makes  up  the  interval  of  the  six  days  since 
Jesus  came  to  Bethany,  according  to  St.  Mark,  which  tal- 
lies exactly  with  the  direct  assertion  of  St.  John,  that 
"  Jesus  six  days  before  the  Passover  came  to  Bethany." 

But  how  unconcerted  is  this  agreement  between  the 
Evangelists !  St.  John's  declaration  of  the  date  of  the  arri- 
val of  Jesus  at  Bethany  is  indeed  unambiguous ;  but  the 
corresponding  relation  of  St.  Markj  though  proved  to  be  in 
perfect  accordance  with  St.  John,  has  to  be  traced  with 
pains  and  difficulty  ;  some  of  the  steps  necessary  for  arriv- 

26 


302  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    IV 

ing  at  the  conclusion  altogether  inferential.  How  ex- 
tremely improbable  is  a  concurrence  of  this  nature  upon 
any  other  supposition  than  the  truth  of  the  incident  related, 
and  the  independent  knowledge  of  it  of  the  witnesses :  and 
how  infallibly  would  that  be  the  impression  it  would  pro- 
duce on  the  minds  of  a  jury,  supposing  it  to  be  an  ingre- 
dient in  a  case  of  circumstantial  evidence  presented  to  them. 

2.  A  second  slight  coincidence,  which  offers  itself  to  our 
notice  on  the  events  of  Bethany,  is  the  following : — 

It  is  in  the  evening  that  the  Evangelists  represent  Jesus 
as  returning  from  the  city  to  Bethany :  "  And  now  the 
even-tide  was  come,  he  went  out  unto  Bethany  with  the 
twelve."  (Mark  xi.  11.)  "And  when  even  was  come,  he 
went  out  of  the  city,"  (ver.  19,)  says  St.  Mark.  "  And  he 
left  them,  and  went  out  of  the  city  unto  Bethany,  and 
lodged  there.  Now  in  the  morning  as  he  returned,"  &c. 
(Matth.  xxi.  17,)  says  St.  Matthew. 

St.  John  does  not  speak  directly  of  Jesus  going  in  the 
evening  to  Bethany.  But  there  is  an  incidental  expression 
in  him  which  implies  that  such  was  his  own  conviction, 
though  nothing  can  be  less  studied  than  it  is.  For  he  tells 
us,  that  at  Bethany,  " they  made  him  a  supper"  deinvor, 
a  term,  as  now  used,  indicating  an  evening  meal.  Had 
St.  John  happened  to  employ  the  same  phrase  St.  Mark 
does  when  relating  this  same  event,  (Mcnatxsifi&vov  aviov  "  as 
he  sat  at  meat,")  the  argument  would  have  been  lost ;  as 
it  is,  the  mention  of  the  meal  by  St.  John,  (who  takes  no 
notice  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  lodged  at  Bethany,  though  he 
spent  the  day  at  Jerusalem,)  and  such  meal  being  an  eve- 
ning  meal,  is  tantamount  to  St.  Mark's  statement,  that  he 
passed  his  evenings  in  this  village. 

3.  The  same  fact  coincides  with  several  other  particulars, 
though  our  attention  is  not  drawn  to  them  by  the  Evan- 
gelists. It  is  obvious,  from  the  history,  that  the  danger  to 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  303 

Jesus  did  not  arise  from  the  multitude,  but  from  the  priests. 
The  multitude  were  with  him,  until,  as  I  have  said  in  a 
former  paragraph,  they  were  persuaded  that  he  assumed 
to  himself  the  character  of  God,  and  spake  blasphemy, 
when  they  turned  against  him  :  but  till  then  they  were  on 
his  side.  Judas  "  promised  and  sought  opportunity  to  be- 
tray him  in  the  absence  of  the  multitude"  (Luke  xxii.  6.) 
The  chief-priests  and  elders,  in  consulting  on  his  death, 
said,  "  not  on  the  feast-day,  lest  there  be  an  uproar  among 
the  people"  (Matth.  xxvi.  5.)  Jesus  therefore  felt  himself 
safe,  nay,  powerful,  so  that  he  could  even  clear  the  temple 
of  its  profaners  by  force,  in  the  day ;  but  not  so  in  the 
night. — In  the  night,  the  chief-priests  might  use  stratagem, 
as  they  eventually  did ;  and  the  fact  appears  to  be,  that  the 
very  first  night  Jesus  did  not  retire  to  Bethany,  but  re- 
mained in  and  about  Jerusalem,  he  was  actually  betrayed 
and  seized.  There  is  a  consistency,  I  say,  of  the  most 
artless  kind  in  the  several  parts  of  this  narrative ;  a  con- 
sistency, however,  such  as  we  have  to  detect  for  ourselves ; 
and  so  latent  and  unobtrusive,  that  no  forgery  could  reach  it.1 


xxvm. 

IT  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  coincidence  in  the  fol- 
lowing particulars,  relating  to  this  same  locality,  not  the 
less  valuable  from  being  in  some  degree  intricate  and  in- 
volved. 

1.  Luke  ix.  51. — "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  time  was 
come  that  he  should  be  received  up,  he  steadfastly  set 
his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem" 

Expressions  occur  in  the  remainder  of  this  and  in  the 
following  chapter,  which  show  that  the  mind  of  St.  Luke 

1  Several  of  the  thoughts  in  this  Number  are  suggested  to  me  by  Mr.  A. 
Johnson's  "  Christus  Crucifixus." 


304  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV 

was  contemplating  the  events  which  happened  on  this  jour- 
ney, though  he  does  not  make  it  his  business  to  trace  it 
step  by  step  :  thus  (ver.  52),  "  And  they  went  and  entered 
into  a  village  of  the  Samaritans."  And  again  (ver.  57), 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  as  they  went  in  the  way,  a 
certain  man  said  unto  him,"  (fee.  And  again  (x.  38),  "  And 
it  came  to  pass,  as  they  went)  that  they  entered  into  a 
certain  village:  and  a  certain  woman,  named  Martha, 
received  him  into  her  house.  And  she  had  a  sister  called 
Mary.''  The  line  of  march,  therefore,  which  St.  Luke 
was  pursuing  in  his  own  mind  in  the  narrative,  was  that 
which  was  leading  Jesus  through  Samaria  to  Jerusalem ; 
and  in  the  last  of  the  verses  I  have  quoted,  he  brings  him 
to  this  "  certain  village,"  which  he  does  not  name,  but  he 
tells  us  it  was  the  abode  of  Martha  and  Mary. 

Accordingly,  on  comparing  this  passage  with  John  (xi.  1), 
we  are  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  village  was  Bethany  ; 
for  it  is  there  said,  that  Bethany  "  was  the  town  of  Mary 
and  her  sister  Martha." 

But  on  looking  at  St.  Mark's  account  of  a  similar  journey 
of  Jesus,  for  probably  it  was  not  the  same,1  we  find  that  the 
preceding  stage  which  he  made  before  coming  to  Bethany 
was  from  Jericho:  (Mark  x.  46.)  "And  they  came  to 
Jericho :  and  as  he  went  out  of  Jericho  with  his  disciples 
and  a  great  number  of  people,"  &c.  And  then  it  follows 
(xi.  1),  "And  when  they  ^ame  nigh  to  Jerusalem,  unto 
Bethphage  and  Bethany"  &c.  This,  therefore,  brings  us 
to  the  same  point  as  St.  Luke.  Thus,  to  recapitulate :  we 
learn  from  St.  Luke,  that  Jesus,  in  a  journey  from  Galilee 
to  Jerusalem,  arrived  at  the  village  of  Martha  and  Mary. 

We  learn  from  St.  John,  that  this  village  was  Bethany. 

And  we  learn  from  St.  Mark,  that  the  last  town  Jesus 

i  See  Luke  xiii.  22;  xvii.  11 ;  xvhi.  31 ;  where  a  subsequent  journey  is 
perhaps  spoken  of. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  305 

left  before  he  came  to  Bethany,  on  a  similar  journey,  if  not 
the  same,  was  Jericho. 

Now  let  us  turn  once  more  to  St.  Luke,  (x.  30,)  and  we 
shall  there  discover  Jesus  giving  utterance  to  a  parable  on 
this  occasion,  which  is  placed  in  immediate  juxtaposition 
with  the  history  of  his  reaching  Bethany,  as  though  it  had 
been  spoken  just  before.  For,  as  soon  as  it  is  ended,  the 
narrative  proceeds,  tl  Now  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  went, 
that  he  entered  into  a  certain  village :  and  a  certain 
woman  named  Martha  received  him  into  her  house,"  (x. 
38.)  And  what  was  this  parable  ?  That  of  "  a  certain 
man  who  went  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  and  fell 
among  thieves,"  &c.  It  seems,  then,  highly  probable,  that 
Jesus  was  actually  travelling  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem 
(Bethany  being  just  short  of  Jerusalem),  when  he  delivered 
it.  What  can  be  more  like  reality  than  this  ?  Yet  how 
circuitously  do  we  get  at  our  conclusion  ! 

2.  Nor  is  even  this  all.     The  parable  represents  a  priest 
and  Levite  as  on  the  road.     This  again  is  entirely  in  keep- 
ing with  the  scene  :  for  whether  it  was  that  the  school  of 
the  prophets  established  from  old  at  Jericho1  had  given  a 
sacerdotal  character  to  the  town  ;  or  whether  it  was  its 
comparative  proximity  to  Jerusalem,  that  had  invited  the 
priests  and  Levites  to  settle  there  ;  certain  it  is  that  a  very 
large  portion  of  the  courses  that  waited  at  the  temple  re- 
sided at  Jericho,  ready  to  take  their  turn  at  Jerusalem 
when  duty  called  them  ;2  so  that  it  was  more  than  prob- 
able that  Jesus,  on  coming  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem,  on 
this  occasion,  with  his  disciples,  would  meet  many  of  this 
order.     How  vivid  a  coloring  of  truth  does  all  this  give  to 
the  fact  of  the  parable  having  been  spoken  as  St.  Luke 
says ! 

3.  Nay  more  still — I  can  believe  that  there  may  be  dis- 

i  2  Kings  ii.  5.  2  See  Liffhtfoot,  Vol.  n.  p.  45,  fid. 

26* 


306  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  PART    IV. 

covered  a  reason  coincident  with  the  circumstances  of  the 
time,  in  Jesus  choosing  to  imagine  a  Samaritan  for  the 
benefactor  at  this  particular  moment — for  it  had  only  been 
shortly  before,  at  least  it  was  upon  this  same  journey,  that 
James  and  John  had  proposed,  when  the  Samaritans 
would  not  receive  him,  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  and 
consume  them.  (Luke  ix.  54.)  Could  the  spirit  they  were 
of  be  more  gracefully  rebuked  than  thus  ?  Again,  how 
real  is  all  this  ! 


XXIX. 

John  xviii.  10. — "  Then  Simon  Peter  having  a  sword  drew 
it,  and  smote  the  high-priest's  servant,  and  cut  off  his 
right  ear.     The  servant's  name  was  Malchus." 
15. — "  And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so  did  another 
disciple :  that  disciple  was  known  unto  the  high 
priest,  and  went  in  with  Jesus  into  the  palace  of  the 
high-priest." 

16. — "  But  Peter  stood  at  the  door  without.  Then  went 
out  that  other  disciple,  which  was  known  unto  the 
high-priest,  and  spake  unto  her  that  kept  the  door, 
and  brought  in  Peter" 

IN  my  present  argument,  it  will  be  needful  to  show,  in 
the  first  instance,  that  "  the  disciple  who  was  known  unto 
the  high-priest,"  mentioned  in  ver.  15,  was  probably  the 
Evangelist  himself.  This  I  conclude  from  three  considera- 
tions : — 

1.  From   the   testimony  of  the   fathers,    Chrysostom, 
Theophylact,  and  Jerom.1 

2.  From  the  circumstance  ;hat  St.  John  often  unques- 
tionably speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person  in  a  similar 

1  See  Lardner's  History  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  ch.  ix. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS  307 

manner.  Thus,  chap.  xx.  2,  "Then  she  runneth  and 
cometh  to  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved ;  and  ver.  3, 
"  Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple." 
The  like  phrase  is  repeated  several  times  in  the  same 
chapter  and  elsewhere. 

3.  Moreover,  it  may  be  thought,  as  Bishop  Middleton 
has  argued,  that  St.  John   has  a  distinctive  claim  to  the 
title  of  "  the  other  disciple,"  (6  dittos  ^w^rrfc,  not  "  another," 
as  our  version  has  it,)  where  St.  Peter  is  the  colleague  :  for 
that  a  closer  relation  subsisted  between  Peter  and  John 
than  between  any  other  of  the  disciples.     They  constantly 
act  together.     Peter  and  John  are  sent  to  prepare  the  last 
Passover  (Luke  xxii.  8).     Peter  and  John  run  together  to 
the  sepulchre.     John  apprizes  Peter  that  the  stranger  at 
the  sea  of  Tiberias  is  Jesus  (John  xxi.  7).     Peter  is  anx- 
ious to  learn  of  Jesus  what  is  to  become  of  John  (ver.  21). 
After  the  ascension  they  are  associated  together  in  all  the 
early  history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

4.  The  narrative  of  the  motions  of  "  that  disciple  who 
was   known  unto  the  high-priest,"  his  coming  out  and 
going  in,  is  so  express  and  circumstantial,  that  it  bears 
every  appearance  of  having  been  written  by  the  party 
himself.     Nor  in  fact  do  any  other  of  the  Evangelists  men- 
tion a  syllable  about  "  that  other  disciple ;"  they  tell  us, 
indeed,  that  Peter   did  enter  the  high-priest's  h£use,  but 
they  take  no  notice  of  the  particulars  of  his  admission,  nor 
how  it  was  effected,  nor  of  any  obstacles  thrown  in  the 
way. 

For  these  reasons,  I  understand  the  disciple  known  unto 
the  high-priest  to  have  been  St.  John.  My  argument  now 
stands  thus.  The  assault  committed  by  Peter  is  mentioned 
by  all  the  Evangelists,  but  the  name  of  the  servant  is  given 
by  St.  John  only.  How  does  this  happen  ?  Most  natu- 
rally ;  for  it  seems  by  some  chance  or  other  St.  John  was 


308  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV, 

known  not  only  unto  the  high-priest,  but  also  to  his  house- 
hold— that  the  servants  were  acquainted  with  him,  and  he 
with  them,  since  he  was  permitted  to  enter  into  the  high- 
priest's  house,  whilst  Peter  was  shut  out,  and  no  sooner 
did  he  "  speak  unto  her  that  kept  the  door,"  than  Peter 
was  admitted.  So  again,  in  further  proof  of  the  same 
thing,  when  another  of  the  servants  charges  Peter  with 
being  one  of  Christ's  disciples,  St.  John  adds  a  circum- 
stance peculiar  to  himself,  and  marking  his  knowledge  of 
the  family,  that  "  it  was  his  kinsman  whose  ear  Peter 
cut  off:9 

These  facts,  I  conceive,  show  that  St.  John  (on  the  sup- 
position that  St.  John  and  "  the  other  disciple"  are  one 
and  the  same)  was  personally  acquainted  with  the  servants 
of  the  high-priest.  How  natural,  therefore,  was  it.  that 
in  mentioning  such  an  incident  as  Peter's  attack  upon  one 
of  those  servants,  he  should  mention  the  man  by  name, 
and  the  "  servant's  name  was  Malchus ;"  whilst  the 
other  Evangelists,  to  whom  the  sufferer  was  an  individual 
in  whom  they  took  no  extraordinary  interest,  were  satisfied 
with  a  general  designation  of  him,  as  "  one  of  the  servants 
of  the  high-priest." 

This  incident  also,  in  some  degree,  though  not  in  the 
same  degree  perhaps  as  certain  others  which  have  been 
mentioned,  supports  the  miracle  which  ensues.  For  if  the 
argument  shows  that  the  Evangelists  are  uttering  the 
truth  when  they  say  that  such  an  event  occurred  as  the 
blow  with  the  sword — if  it  shows  that  there  actually  was 
such  a  blow  struck — then  is  there  not  additional  ground 
for  believing  that  they  continue  to  tell  the  truth,  when 
they  say  in  the  same  passage  that  the  effects  of  the  blow 
were  miraculously  removed,  and  that  the  ear  was  healed  ? 

I  am  aware  that  there  are  those  who  argue  for  the  su- 
perior rank  and  station  of  St.  John,  from  his  being  known 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  309 

unto  the  high-priest ;  and  who  may,  therefore,  think  him 
degraded  by  this  implied  familiarity  with  his  servants. 
Suffice  it  however  to  say, — that,  as  on  the  one  hand,  to  be 
known  to  the  high-priest  does  not  determine  that  he  was 
his  equal,  so,  on  the  other,  to  be  known  to  his  servants 
does  not  determine  that  he  was  not  their  superior  ;  further- 
more, that  the  relation  in  which  servants  stood  towards 
their  betters  was,  in  ancient  times,  one  of  much  less  dis- 
tance than  at  present ;  and,  lastly,  that  the  Scriptures 
themselves  lay  no  claim  to  dignity  of  birth  for  this.  Apostle, 
when  they  represent  of  him  and  of  St.  Peter,  (Acts  iv.  13,) 
that  Annas,  and  the  elders,  after  hearing  their  defence, 
"  perceived  them  to  be  unlearned  and  ignorant  men." 


XXX. 

John  xviii.  36. — "  Jesus  answered,  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world :  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  de- 
livered to  the  Jews." 

NOTHING  could  have  been  more  natural  than  for  his 
enemies  to  have  reminded  our  Lord,  that  in  one  instance 
at  least,  and  that  too  of  very  recent  occurrence,  his  ser- 
vants did  fight.  Indeed,  Jesus  himself  might  here  be 
almost  thought  to  challenge  inquiry  into  the  assault  Peter 
had  so  lately  committed  upon  the  servant  of  the  high- 
priest.  Assuredly  there  was  no  disposition  on  the  part  of 
his  accusers  to  spare  him.  The  council  sought  for  witness 
against  Jesus,  and  where  could  it  be  found  more  readily 
than  in  the  high-priest's  own  house  ?  Frivolous  and  un- 
founded calumnies  of  all  sorts  were  brought  forward,  which 
agreed  not  together  ;  but  this  act  of  violence,  indisputably 
committed  by  one  of  his  companions  in  his  Master's  cause, 


310  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    IV. 

and,  as  they  would  not  have  scrupled  to  assert,  under  his 
Master's  eye,  is  altogether  and  intentionally,  as  it  should 
seem,  kept  out  of  sight. 

The  suppression  of  the  charge  is  the  more  remarkable, 
from  the  fact,  that  a  relation  of  Maichus  was  actually 
present  at  the  time,  and  evidently  aware  of  the  violence 
which  had  been  done  his  kinsman,  though  not  quite  able 
to  identify  the  offender.  "  One  of  the  servants  of  the  high- 
priest,  being  his  kinsman  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off,  said,  Did 
I  not  see  thee  in  the  garden  with  him  ?"  (ver.  26.)  Surely 
nothing  could  have  been  more  natural  than  for  this  man 
to  be  clamorous  for  redress. 

Had  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  never  come  down  to  us,  it 
would  have  remained  a  difficulty,  (one  of  the  many  diffi- 
culties of  Scripture  arising  from  the  conciseness  and  de- 
sultory nature  of  the  narrative,)  to  have  accounted  for  the 
suppression  of  a  charge  against  Jesus,  which  of  all  others 
would  have  been  the  most  likely  to  suggest  itself  to  his 
persecutors,  from  the  offence  having  been  just  committed, 
and  from  the  sufferer  being  one  of  the  high-priest's  own 
family  ;  a  charge  moreover  which  would  have  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  founded  in  truth,  and  would  therefore 
have  been  far  more  effective  than  accusations  which  could 
not  be  sustained.  Let  us  hear,  however,  St.  Luke.  He 
tells  us,  and  he  only,  that  when  the  blow  had  been  struck, 
Jesus  said,  "  Suffer  ye  thus  far  :  and  he  touched  his  ear 
and  healed  him." — (xxii.  51.) 

The  miracle  satisfactorily  explains  the  suppression  of 
the  charge — to  have  advanced  it  would  naturally  have  led 
to  an  investigation  that  would  have  more  than  frustrated 
the  malicious  purpose  it  was  meant  to  serve.  It  would 
have  proved  too  much.  It  might  have  furnished  indeed 
an  argument  against  the  peaceable  professions  of  Jesus's 
party,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  would  have  made  manifest 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  311 

his  own  compassionate  nature,  submission  to  the  laws, 
and  extraordinary  powers.  Pilate,  who  sought  occasion  to 
release  him,  might  have  readily  found  in  it  a  circumstance 
so  well  calculated  to  convince  him  of  the  innocence  of  the 
prisoner,  and  of  his  being  (what  he  evidently  suspected  and 
feared)  something  more  than  human. 


XXXI. 

John  xx.  4. — "  So  they  ran  both  together :  and  the  other 
disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and  came  first  to  the  sep- 
ulchre. 
5. — "  And  he  stooping  down,  and  looking  in.  saw  the  linen 

clothes  lying ;  yet  went  he  not  in. 
6. — "  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  following  him,  and  went 

into  the  sepulchre,  and  seeth  the  linen  clothes  lie. 
7. — "  And  the  napkin,  that  was  about  his  head,  not  lying 
with  the  linen  clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a  place 
by  itself. 
8. — "  Then  went  in  also  that  other  disciple,  which  came 

first  to  the  sepulchre." 

How  express  and  circumstantial  is  this  narrative  !  How 
difficult  it  is  to  read  it  and  doubt  for  a  moment  of  its  per- 
fect truth  !  My  more  immediate  concern  however  with  the 
passage  is  this,  that  it  affords  two  coincidences,  certainly 
very  trifling  in  themselves,  but  still  signs  of  veracity : — 
1.  St.  John  outran  St.  Peter.  It  is  universally  agreed 
by  ecclesiastical  writers  of  antiquity,  that  John  was  the 
youngest  of  all  the  Apostles.  That  Peter  was  at  this  time 
past  the  vigor  of  his  age,  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  an 
expression  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  St.  John — "  Ver- 
ily, verily,  I  say  unto  thee,"  says  Jesus  to  Peter,  "  when 
tkou  wast  young,  thou  girdest  thyself,  and  walkedst 


312  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART.    IV. 

whither  thou  wouldest :  but  when  thou  shalt  be  old,  thou 
shall  stretch  forth  thy  hands,  and  another  shalt  gird  thee, 
and  carry  thee  whither  thou  wouldest  not." — ver.  18.  Or 
(what  may  be  more  satisfactory)  there  being  every  reason 
to  believe  that  St.  John  survived  St.  Peter  six  or  seven  and 
thirty  years,1  it  almost  necessarily  follows  that  he  must 
have  been  much  the  younger  man  of  the  two,  since  the 
term  of  St.  Peter's  natural  life  was  probably  not  very  much 
forestalled  by  his  martyrdom.2  Accordingly,  when  they 
ran  both  together  to  the  sepulchre,  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  John  should  outrun  his  more  aged  companion,  and 
come  there  first. 

I  do  not  propose  this  as  a  new  light,  but  I  am  not  aware 
that  it  has  been  brought  so  prominently  forward  as  it  de- 
serves. An  incident  thus  trivial  and  minute  disarms  sus- 
picion. The  most  sceptical  cannot  see  cunning  or  con- 
trivance in  it ;  and  it  is  no  small  point  gained  over  such 
persons,  to  lead  them  to  distrust  and  re-examine  their  bold 
conclusions.  This  little  fact  may  be  the  sharp  end  of  the 
wedge  that  shall  by  degrees  cleave  their  doubts  asunder. 
Seeing  this,  they  may  by-and-by  "  see  greater  things  than 
these."  But  this  is  not  all : — for,  2dly,  though  John  came 
first  to  the  sepulchre,  he  did  not  venture  to  go  in  till  Peter 
set  him  the  example.  Peter  did  not  pause  "  to  stoop 
down"  and  "  look  in,"  but  boldly  entered  at  once — he  was 
not  troubled  for  fear  of  seeing  a  spirit,  which  was  probably 
the  feeling  that  withheld  St.  John  from  entering,  as  it  was 
the  feeling  which,  on  a  former  occasion,  caused  the  dis- 
ciples (Mark  xiv.  26)  to  cry  out.  Peter  was  anxiously 
impatient  to  satisfy  himself  of  the  truth  of  the  women's 
report,  and  to  meet  once  more  his  crucified  Master :  all 

i  See  Lardner's  History  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  ch.  ix,  sect  6. 
and  ch.  xviii.  sect.  5. 
s  Consult  2  Peter  i.  14,  and  John  xxi.  18.    . 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  313 

other  considerations  were  with  him  absorbed  in  this  one. 
Now  such  is  precisely  the  conduct  we  should  have  expect- 
ed from  a  man,  who  seldom  or  never  is  offered  to  our  no- 
tice in  the  course  of  the  New  Testament,  (and  it  is  very 
often  that  our  attention  is  directed  to  him,)  without  some 
indication  being  given  of  his  possessing  a  fearless,  spirited, 
and  impetuous  character.  Slight  as  this  trait  is,  it  marks 
the  same  individual  who  ventured  to  commit  himself  to 
the  deep  and  "  walk  upon  the  water,"  whilst  the  other 
disciples  remained  in  the  boat ;  who  "  drew  his  sword  and 
smote  the  high-priest's  servant,"  whilst  they  were  con- 
founded and  dismayed ;  who  "  girt  his  fisher's  coat  about 
him  and  cast  himself  into  the  sea"  to  greet  his  Master 
when  he  appeared  again,  whilst  his  companions  came  in  a 
little  ship,  dragging  the  net  with  fishes  ;  who  was  ever 
most  obnoxious  to  the  civil  power,  so  that  when  any  of  the 
disciples  are. cast  into  prison,  there  are  we  sure  to  find  St. 
Peter.  (See  Acts  v.  18,  29 ;  xii.  3  ;  xvi.  25.)  Again,  I 
say,  I  cannot  imagine  that  designing  persons,  however 
wary  they  might  have  been,  however  much  upon  their 
guard,  could  possibly  have  given  their  fictitious  narrative 
this  singular  air  of  truth,  by  the  introduction  of  circum- 
stances so  unimportant,  yet  so  consistent  and  harmonious. 


XXXII. 

THE  Gospel  of  St.  John  contains  no  history  whatever  of 
the  Ascension  of  Jesus ;  indeed,  the  narrative  terminates 
before  it  comes  to  that  point.  Yet  there  are  passages  in 
it  from  which  we  may  incidentally  gather  that  the  ascen- 
sion was  considered  by  him  as  a  notorious  fact.  Passages 
which  perfectly  coincide  with  the  direct  description  of  that 
event,  contained  in  Acts  i.  3 — 13. 

27 


314  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART  IV. 

Thus,  John  iii.  13. — "  And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the 
Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven." 
Again,  vi.  62. — "  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 

ascend  up  where  ne  was  before." 

Again,  xx.  17. — "  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Touch  me  not ;  for 
I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father  :  but  go  to  my 
brethren,  and  say  unto  them,  1  ascend  unto  my  Fa- 
ther, and  your  Father ;  and  to  my  God,  and  your 
God." 

Had  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  been  the  only  portion  of  the 
New  Testament  which  had  descended  to  our  times,  and  all 
record  of  the  ascension  had  perished,  these  casual  allusions 
to  it  might  have  been  lost  upon  us ;  but  when  coupled  with 
such  record,  a  record  quite  independent  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John,  they  convey  to  us,  far  more  strongly  than  any  ac- 
count he  might  have  given  of  it  in  detail  could  have  done, 
the  testimony  of  that  Apostle  to  the  truth  of  this  last  mar- 
vellous act  of  the  marvellous  life  of  our  blessed  Lord ;  and 
of  which  he  was  himself  a  spectator. 


XXXIII. 

THERE  is  a  difference  in  the  quarter  from  which  oppo- 
sition to  the  Gospel  of  Christ  proceeded,  as  represented  in 
the  Gospels  and  in  the  Acts,  moftt  characteristic  of  truth, 
though  most  unobtrusive  in  itself.  Indeed,  these  two  por- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  might  be  read  many  times 
over  without  the  feature  I  allude  to  happening  to  present 
itself. 

Throughout  the  Gospels,  the  hostility  to  the  Christian 
cause  manifested  itself  almost  exclusively  from  the  Phari- 
sees. Jesus  evidently  considers  them  as  a  sect  systemati- 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  315 

cally  adverse  to  it — "  Woe  unto  you,  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
hypocrites.  Ye  are  the  children  of  them  which  killed  the 

prophets Fill  ye  up  the  measure  of  your  fathers."1 

And  before  Jesus  came  up  to  the  last  passover,  "  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees"  we  read,  "gave  commandment, 
that,  if  any  man  knew  where  he  were,  he  should  show  it, 
that  they  might  take  him."2  And  that  when  Judas  pro- 
posed to  betray  him,  "  he  received  a  band  of  men  and  offi- 
cers from  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees"*  On  the  other 
hand,  throughout  the  Acts,  the  like  hostility  is  discovered 
to  proceed  from  the  Sadducees.  Thus,  "  And  as  they" 
(Peter  and  John)  "  spake  unto  the  people,  the  priests  and 
the  captain  of  the  Temple  and  the  Sadducees  came  upon 
them."4  And  again,  on  another  occasion,  "  The  high  priest 
rose  up,  and  all  that  were  with  him,  which  is  the  sect  of  the 
Sadducees,  and  were  filled  with  indignation ;  and  laid 
hands  on  the  apostles,  and  put  them  in  the  common  pri- 
son."6 And  again,  in  a  still  more  remarkable  case ;  when 
Paul  was  maltreated  before  Ananias,  and  there  was  danger 
perhaps  to  his  life,  he  "  perceiving,"  we  read,  "  that  the  one 
part  were  Sadducees,  and  the  other  Pharisees,  cried  out 
in  the  council,  Men  and  brethren,  I  am  a  Pharisee,  the  son 
of  a  Pharisee  ;"6  evidently  considering  the  Pharisees  now  to 
be  the  friendly  faction,  and  soliciting  their  support  against 
the  Sadducees,  whom  he  equally  regarded  as  a  hostile  one  ; 
nor  was  he  disappointed  in  his  appeal. 

Whence  then  this  extraordinary  change  in  the  relations 
of  these  parties  respectively  to  the  Christians  1  No  doubt, 
because  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  which 
before  Christ's  own  resurrection,  i.  e.  during  the  period 
comprised  in  the  Gospels,  had  been  so  far  from  dispersed  by 
the  disciples,  that  they  scarcely  knew  what  it  meant  (Mark 

i  Matth.  xxiii.  29,  32.  2  John  xi.  57.  3  Ib.  xviii.  3. 

<  Acts  iv.  1.  s  ib.  v.  17.  6  Ib.  xxiii.  6. 

of 


&IM 


• 

316  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

ix.  10),  had  now  become  a  leading  doctrine  with  them  ; 
as  anybody  may  satisfy  themselves  was  the  case  by  read- 
ing the  several  speeches  of  St.  Peter,  which'  are  given  in 
the  early  chapters  of  the  Acts ;  in  each  and  all  of  which 
the  resurrection  is  a  prominent  feature — in  that  which  he 
delivers,  on  providing  a  successor  for  Judas  (Acts  i.  22) ;  at 
the  feast  of  Penticost  (ii.  32) :  at  the  Beautiful  Gate  (iii.  12) ; 
the  next  day,  before  the  priests  (iv.  10) ;  again,  before  the 
council  (v.  31) ;  once  more,  on  the  conversion  of  Cornelius 
(x.  40).  The  coincidence  here  lies  in  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees  acting  on  this  occasion  consistently  with  their 
respective  tenets :  "  For  the  Sadducees  say  that  there  is  no 
resurrection,  neither  angel  nor  spirit:  but  the  Pharisees 
confess  both."1  The  undesignedness  of  the  coincidence 
consists  in  its  being  left  to  the  readers  of  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  to  discover  for  themselves  that  there  was  this  change 
of  the  persecuting  sect  after  the  Lord's  resurrection,  their 
attention  not  drawn  to  it  by  any  direct  notice  in  the  docu- 
ments themselves. 


XXXIV. 

Acts  iv.  36. — "  And  loses,  who  by  the  Apostle  was  sur- 
named  Barnabas,  a  Levite,  and  of  the  country  of 
Cyprus,  having  land,  sold  it,  and  brought  the  money, 
and  laid  it  at  the  Apostles'  feet." 

I  HAVE  often  thought  that  there  is  a  harmony  pervading 
everything  connected  with  Barnabas,  enough  in  itself  to 
stamp  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as  a  history  of  perfect  fidel- 
ity. In  the  verse  which  I  have  placed  at  the  head  of  this 
paragraph,  we  see  that  he  was  a  native  of  Cyprus  ;  a  cir- 

i  Acts  xxiii.  8. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  317 

cumstance  upon  which  a  good  deal  of  what  I  have  to  say 
respecting  him  will  be  found  to  turn. 

1.  First  then,  we  discover  him  coming  forward  in  be- 
half of  Paul,  whose  conversion  was  suspected  by  the  disci- 
ples at  Jerusalem,  with  the  air  of  a  man  who  could  vouch 
for  his  sincerity,  by  previous  personal  knowledge  of  him. 
How  it  was  that  he  was  better  acquainted  with  the  Apostle 
than  the  rest,  the  author  of  the  Acts  does  not  inform  us, 
Cyprus,  however,  the  country  of  Barnabas^  was  usually 
annexed  to  Cilicia,  and  formed  an  integral  part  of  that 
province,  whereof  Tarsus,  the  country  of  Paul,  was  the 
chief  city.1  It  may  seem  fanciful,  however,  to  suppose  that 
at  Tarsus,  which  was  famous  for  its  schools  and  the  facil- 
ities it  afforded  for  education,2  the  two  Christian  teachers 
might  have  laid  the  foundation  of  their  friendship  in  the 
years  of  their  boyhood.  Yet  I  cannot  think  this  improba- 
ble. That  Paul  collected  his  Greek  learning  (of  which  he 
had  no  inconsiderable  share)  in  his  native  place,  before  he 
was  removed  to  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  is  very  credible ;  nor 
less  so,  that  Barnabas  should  have  been  sent  there  from 
Cyprus,  a  distance  of  seventy  miles  only,  as  to  the  nearest 
school  of  note  in  those  parts.  Be  that,  however,  as  it  may, 
what  could  be  more  natural  than  for  an  intimacy  to  be 
formed  between  them  subsequently  in  Jerusalem,  whither 
they  had  both  resorted?  They  were,  as  we  have  seen,  all 
but  compatriots,  and,  under  the  circumstances,  were  likely 
to  have  their  common  friends.  Neither  may  it  be  thought 
wholly  irrelevant  to  observe,  that  when  it  was  judged  safe 
for  Paul  to  return  from  Tarsus,  where  he  had  been  living 
for  a  time  to  avoid  the  Greeks,  Barnabas  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity of  visiting  that  town  in  person,  "  to  seek  him,"  and 

1  Cicer.  Epist.  Familiar.    Lib.  i.  ep.  vii.    See  also  Maffei  Verona  Illus- 
trata,  Vol.  i.  p.  352. 

2  See  Wetstein  on  Acts  a  11. 

27* 


318 


THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  PART    IV 


bring  him  to  Antioch.  A  journey  which,  as  it  does  not 
seem  to  be  necessary,  was  possibly  undertaken  by  Barna- 
bas partly  for  the  purpose  of  renewing  his  intercourse  with 
his  early  acquaintance. 

2.  Again,  in  another  place  we  read,  "  And  some  of  them 
were  men  of  Cyprus  and  Gyrene,  which,  when  they  were 
come  to  Antioch,  spake  unto  the  Grecians,  preaching  the 
Lord  Jesus.     And  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with  them : 
and  a  great  number  believed,  and  turned  unto  the  Lord. 
Then  tidings  of  these  things  came  unto  the  ears  of  the 
church  which  was  at  Jerusalem.     And  they  sent  forth 
Barnabas,  that  he  should  go  as  far  as  Antioch"  (Acts. 
ix.  20.)     Here  no  reason  is  assigned  why  Barnabas  should 
have  been  chosen  to  go  to  Antioch,  and  acquaint  himself 
with  the  progress  these  new  teachers  were  making  amongst 
the  Grecians;  but  we  may  observe,  that  "some  of  them 
were  men  of  Cyprus  ;"  and  having  learned  elsewhere  that 
Barnabas  was  of  that  country  also,  we  at  once  discover 
the  propriety  of  dispatching  him,  above  all  others,  to  con- 
fer with  them  on  the  part  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem. 

3.  Again,  when,  at  a  subsequent  period,  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas went  forth  together  to  preach  unto  the  Gentiles,  we 
perceive  that  "  they  departed   unto  Seleucia,  and  from 
thence  sailed  to  Cyprus."  (xiii.  4.)     And  further,  in  a 
second  journey,  after  Paul  in  some  heat  had  parted  com- 
pany with  them,  we  read  that  Barnabas  and  Mark  again 
"sailed  unto    Cyprus."    (xv.  32.)     This    was   precisely 
what  we  might  expect.     Barnabas  naturally  enough  chose 
to  visit  his  own  land  before  he  turned  his  steps  to  strangers. 
Yet  all  this,  satisfactory  as  it  is  in  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
the  history,  we  are  left  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  to  gather  for  ourselves,  by  the  apposition  of  sev- 
eral perfectly  unconnected  passages.^ 

4.  Nor  is  this  all.     "And  some  da  *s  after  (so  we  read, 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  319 

ch.  xv.)  Paul  said  unto  Barnabas,  Let  u£  go  again  and 
visit  our  brethren  in  every  city  where  we  have  preached 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  see  how  they  do.  And  Barna- 
bas determined  to  take  with  them  John,  whose  surname 
was  Mark.  But  Paul  thought  not  good  to  take  him  with 
them,  ivho  departed  from  them  from  Pamphylia,  and 
went  not  with  them  to  the  work.  And  the  contention  was 
so  sharp  between  them,  that  they  departed  asunder  one 
from  another :  and  so  Barnabas  took  Mark,  and  sailed 
unto  Cyprus" 

A  curious  chain  of  consistent  narrative  may  be  traced 
throughout  the  whole  of  this  passage.  The  cause  of  the 
contention  between  Paul  and  Barnabas  has  been  already 
noticed  by  Dr.  Paley ;  I  need  not  therefore  do  more  than 
call  to  my  reader's  mind  (as  that  excellent  advocate  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  has  done)  the  passage  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  iv.  10.  where  it  is  casually  said,  that 
"  Marcus  was  sister's  son  to  Barnabas" — a  relationship 
most  satisfactorily  accounting  for  the  otherwise  extraordi- 
nary pertinacity  with  which  Barnabas  takes  up  Mark's 
cause  in  this  dispute  with  Paul.  Though  anticipated  in 
this  coincidence,  I  was  unwilling  to  pass  it  over  in  silence, 
because  it  is  one  of  a  series  which  attach  to  the  life  of  Bar- 
nabas, and  render  it,  as  a  whole,  a  most  consistent  and 
complete  testimony  to  the  veracity  of  the  Acts. 

One  circumstance  more  remains  still  to  be  noticed.  Mark, 
it  seems,  in  the  former  journey,  "  departed  from  them  from 
Pamphylia,  and  went  not  with  them  to  the  work."  How- 
did  this  happen  ?  The  explanation,  I  think,  is  not  difficult. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  are  appointed  to  go  forth  and  preach. 
Accordingly  they  hasten  to  Seleucia,  the  nearest  sea-port 
to  Antioch,  where  they  were  staying,  and  taking  with  them 
John  or  Mark,  "sail  to  Cyprus,"  (xiii.  4).  Since  Barna- 
bas was  a  Cypriote,  it  is  probable  that  his  nephew  Mark 


320  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 

• 

was  the  same,  or,  at  any  rate,  that  he  had  friends  and  re- 
lations in  that  island.  His  mother,  it  is  true,  had  a  house 
in  Jerusalem,  where  the  disciples  met,  and  where  some  of 
them  perhaps  lodged  (xii.  12) ;  but  so  had  Mnason,  who 
was  nevertheless  ©f  Cyprus  (xxi.  16).  How  reasonable 
then  is  it  to  suppose,  that  in  joining  himself  to  Paul  and 
Barnabas  in  the  outset  of  their  journey,  he  was  partly  in- 
fluenced by  a  very  innocent  desire  to  visit  his  kindred,  his 
connections,  or  perhaps  his  birth-place,  and  that  having 
achieved  this  object,  he  landed  with  his  two  companions  in 
Pamphylia,  and  so  returned  forthwith  to  Jerusalem.  And 
this  supposition  (it  may  be  added)  is  strengthened  by  the 
expression  applied  by  St.  Paul  to  Mark,  "  that  he  went  not 
with  them  to  the  work" — as  if  in  the  particular  case  the 
voyage  to  Cyprus  did  not  deserve  to  be  considered  even  the 
beginning  of  their  labors,  being  more  properly  a  visit  of 
choice  to  kinsfolk  and  acquaintance,  or  to  a  place  at  least 
having  strong  local  charms  for  Mark. 


XXXV. 

Acts  vi.  1.  |  "  And  in  those  days,  when  the  number  of  the 
disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  murmuring  of 
the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their 
widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration. 

2. — «  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples 
unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  reason  that  we  should 
leave  the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables.  Wherefore, 
brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men,  of  hon- 
est report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom 
we  may  appoint  over  this  business. 

5. — «  And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude  :  an_ 
they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith,  and  of  the 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  321 

Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor, 
and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte 
of  Antioch." 

IN  this  passage,  I  perceive  a  remarkable  instance  of 
consistency  without  design.  There  is  a  murmuring  of  the 
Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  on  account  of  what  they 
considered  an  unfair  distribution  of  the  alms  of  the  church. 
Seven  men  are  appointed  to  redress  the  grievance.  No  • 
mention  is  made  of  their  country  or  connections.  The 
multitude  of  the  disciples  is  called  together,  and  by  them 
the  choice  is  made.  No  other  limitation  is  spoken  of  in 
the  commission  they  had  to  fulfil,  than  that  the  men  should 
be  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Yet  it  is  probable, 
(and  here  lies  the  coincidence,)  that  these  deacons  were  all 
of  the  party  aggrieved,  for  their  names  are  all  Grecian. 

It  is  difficult  to  suppose  this  accidental.  There  must 
have  been  Hebrews  enough  fitted  for  the  office.  Yet  Gre- 
cians alone  seem  to  have  been  appointed.  Why  this 
should  be  so,  St.  Luke  does  not  say,  does  not  even  hint. 
We  gather  from  him  that  the  Grecians  thought  themselves 
the  injured  party ;  and  we  then  draw  our  own  conclusions, 
that  the  church  having  a  sincere  wish  to  maintain  har- 
mony, and  remove  all  reasonable  ground  of  complaint, 
chose,  as  advocates  for  the  Greeks,  those  who  would  natu- 
rally feel  for  them  the  greatest  interest,  and  protect  their 
rights  with  a  zeal  that  should  be  above  suspicion. 


XXXVI. 

Acts  xi.  26. — "And  the  disciples  were  called  Christians 

first  in  Antioch." 

THE  mention  of  this  fact  as  a  remarkable  one,  and 
worthy  of  being  recorded,  is  natural,  and  coincides  with 


322  THE    VERACITY    OF   THE  PART    IV; 

the  circumstances  of  the  case  as  gathered  from  other  pas- 
sages of  the  Acts.  For  it  should  seem,  from  the  various 
phrases  and  circumlocutions  resorted  to  in  that  book,  by 
which  to  express  Christians  and  Christianity,  that  for  a 
long  time  no  very  distinctive  term  was  applied  to  either. 
We  read  of  "all  that  believed"  (oi  TnoTsvovreg,  ii.  44) ;  of 
"  the  disciples"  (01  [tudrjTai,  vi.  1) ;  of  "  any  of  this  way/' 
(oi  IT]?  6dov,  ix.  2) ;  and  again,  of  "  the  way  of  God"  (^  TOU 
9eou  6<5o£.  xviii.  26) ;  or  simply  of  "  that  way"  (^  o<S6f,  xix. 
9) ;  or  of  "  this  way"  («^  ^  &Ms,  xxii.  4.)  Indeed,  the 
name  Christian  occurs  but  in  two  other  places  in  the  New 
Testament  (Acts  xxvi.  28  ;  1  Pet.  iv.  16.)  A  title  there- 
fore which  characterized  the  new  sect  succinctly  and  in  a 
word,  and  which  saved  so  much  inconvenient  and  ambigu- 
ous periphrases,  was  memorable  ;  and  even  if  given  in  the 
first  instance  as  a  reproach,  was  sure  to  be  soon  adopted 
and  rendered  familiar.  On  the  supposition  that  the  book 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  a  fiction,  is  it  possible  to 
imagine,  that  this  unobtrusive  evidence  of  the  progress  of 
a  name  would  have  been  found  in  it  71 


XXXVII. 

Acts  xix.  19. — "  Many  of  them  also  which  used  curious 
arts  brought  their  books  together,  and  burned  them 
before  all  men :  and  they  counted  the  price  of  them, 
and  found  it  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver." 
IT  was  at  Ephesus  where  the  effect  of  St.  Paul's  min- 
istry was  thus  powerful — and  where,  therefore,  it  seems 
that  these  magical  arts  very  greatly  prevailed. 

Now  it  was  at  Ephesus  that  Timothy  was  residing 

*  My  attention  was  drawn  to  this  coincidence,  by  a  passage  in  Bishop 
Pearson.    Minor  Theolog.  Works,  i.  p.  367. 


PART    IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  323 

when  St.  Paul  wrote  to  him,  c:  But  evil  men  and  seducers 
(yorjies,  conjurers)  shall  wax  worse  and  worse,  deceiving 
and  being  deceived  (cheats  and  cheated) ;  but  continue 
thou  in  the  things  which  thou  hast  learned,"  &c.  (2  Tim. 
iii.  13.)  These  were  the  men  who  dealt  in  curious  arts— • 
the  trade  of  the  place  in  such  impostures  not  having  alto- 
gether ceased,  it  should  seem,  when  a  bonfire  was  made 
of  the  books.1 


XXXVIII. 

I 

Acts  xxiv.  23. — "And  he  commanded  a  centurion  to 
keep  Paul,  and  to  let  him  have  liberty." 

RATHER  "he  commanded  the  centurion,"  TOJ  etcawvT^Qx^ 

It  should  seem,  therefore,  that  St.  Luke  had  in  his  mind 
some  particular  centurion.  Is  there  anything  in  the  nar- 
rative which  would  enable  us  to  identify  him  ? 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  in  the  preceding  chapter 
(xxiii.  23,)  the  chief  captain  "  called  unto  him  two  centu- 
rions, saying,  Make  ready  two  hundred  soldiers  to  go  to 
Caesarea,  and  horsemen  threescore  and  ten,  and  spearmen 
two  hundred,  at  the  third  hour  of  the  night ;  and  provide 
them  beasts  that  they  may  set  Paul  on,  and  bring  him  safe 
unto  Felix  the  governor." 

This  escort  having  arrived  with  their  prisoner  at  Anti- 
patris  (ver.  32,)  divided  ;  the  infantry  returning  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  of  course  the  centurion  Who  commanded  them ; 
the  horsemen  and  the  other  centurion  proceeding  with 
Paul  to  Caesarea. 

When,  therefore,  St.  Luke  tells  us  that  Felix  com- 
manded the  centurion  to  keep  Paul,  he  no  doubt  meant 

i  This  coincidence  is  suggested  by  Dr.  Burton's  Bampton  Lectures,  iv.  p.  103. 


324  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV, 

the  commander  of  the  horse  who  had  conveyed  him  to 
Caesarea  ;  whose  fidelity  having  already  experienced,  he 
consigned  to  him  this  further  trust. 

This  is  very  natural :  but  the  neglect  or  non-detection 
of  this  touch  of  truth  in  our  version,  shows  how  delicate  a 
thing  the  translation  of  the  Scripture  is  ;  and  how  favor- 
able to  the  evidence  of  its  veracity  is  the  strict  and  accu- 
rate, nay,  even  grammatical  investigation  of  it.1 


XXXIX. 

* 

Acts  xxiv.  26. — "  He  (Felix)  hoped  also  that  money  should 
have  been  given  him  of  Paul,  that  he  might  loose 
him :  wherefore  he  sent  for  him  the  oftener  and  com- 
muned with  him." 

IT  is  observed  by  Lardner,2  that  Felix  (it  might  be 
thought)  could  have  small  hopes  of  receiving  money  from 
such  a  prisoner  as  Paul,  had  he  not  recollected  his  telling 
him,  on  a  former  interview,  that  "after  many  years  he 
came  to  bring  alms  to  his  nation,  and  offerings." — Hence 
he  probably  supposed,  that  the  alms  might  not  yet  be  all 
distributed,  or  if  they  were,  that  a  public  benefactor  would 
soon  find  friends  to  release  him. 

The  observation  is  curious,  and  in  confirmation  of  its 
truth,  I  will  add,  that  the  personal  appearance  of  Paul, 
when  he  was  brought  before  Felix,  was  certainly  not  such 
as  would  give  the  governor  reason  to  believe  that  he  had 
wherewithal  to  purchase  his  own  freedom,  but  quite  the 
contrary.  For  a  passage  in  the  Acts,  (xxii.  28,)  certainly 
conveys  very  satisfactory,  though  indirect,  evidence,  that 

»  Bishop  Middleton,  on  the  Greek  Article,  p.  298,  finds  a  subject  for  phi- 
ology,  here  again,  where  I  find  one  for  evidence. 
2  Vol.  i.  p.  27.    8vo.  edition. 


PART.    IV.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  325 

the  Apostle  wore  poverty  in  his  looks  at  the  very  period  in 
question.  When  Lysias,  the  chief  captain  at  Jerusalem, 
had  been  apprized  that  he  was  a  Roman,  he  could  scarcely 
give  credit  to  the  fact ;  and,  being  further  assured  of  it  by 
Paul  himself,  he  said,  "  With  a  great  sum  obtained  I  this 
freedom,"  manifestly  implying  a  suspicion  of  Paul's  ve- 
racity, whose  appearance  bespoke  no  such  means  of  pro- 
curing citizenship.  The  cupidity,  therefore,  of  Felix  was 
no  doubt  excited,  as  has  been  said,  by  recollecting  the 
errand  on  which  his  prisoner  had  come  so  lately  to  Jeru- 
salem. 

And  this,  moreover,  furnishes  the  true  explanation  of 
the  orders  which  Felix  (very  far  from  a  merciful  or  indul- 
gent officer)  gave  to  the  keeper  of  Paul,  "  to  let  him  have 
liberty,  and  to  forbid  none  of  his  acquaintance  to  min- 
ister or  come  unto  him ;"  a  free  admission  of  his  friends 
being  necessary,  in  order  that  they  might  furnish  him  with 
the  ransom. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  no  coincidence  here  between  inde- 
pendent writers,  but  surely  every  unprejudiced  mind  must 
admit  that  there  is  an  extremely  nice,  minute,  and  unde- 
signed harmony  between  the  speech  of  Paul  and  the  sub- 
sequent conduct  of  Felix  ;  though  the  cause  and  effect  are 
so  far  from  being  traced  by  the  author  of  the  Acts,  that  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  he  saw  any  connection  subsist- 
ing between  them.  Surety,  I  repeat,  such  a  harmony  must 
convince  us  that  it  is  no  fictitious  or  forged  narrative  that 
we  are  reading,  but  a  true  and  very  accurate  detail  of  an 
actual  occurrence. 

XL. 

Acts  xxrr.  5. — "  And  when  we  had  sailed  over  the  sea  of 
and  Pamphylia,  we  came  to  Myra,  a  city  of 

28 


326 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  PART    IV. 


Lyeia.      And  there  the  centurion  found  a  ship  of 

Alexandria  sailing  into  Italy" 
10. — "Sirs,  I  perceive  that  this  voyage  will  be  with  hurt 

and  much  damage,  not  only  of  the  lading  (TOV  <p60rou) 

and  ship,  but  also  of  our  lives." 
38. — "  And  when  they  had  eaten  enough,  they  lightened 

the  ship,  and  cast  out  the  wheat  (r6v  aiw)  into  the  sea. 
IT  has  been  remarked,  I  think  with  justice,  that  the  cir- 
cumstantial details  contained  in  this  chapter  of  the  ship- 
wreck cannot  be  read  without  a  conviction  of  their  truth. 
I  have  never  seen,  however,  the  following  coincidence  in 
some  of  these  particulars  taken  notice  of  in  the  manner  it 
deserves.  In  my  opinion  it  is  very  satisfactory,  and  when 
combined  with  a  paragraph  on  the  same  subject,  which 
will  be  found  in  the  Appendix,  (No.  XXIII.)  establishes 
the  fact  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 
The  ship  into  which  the  centurion  removed  Paul,  and 
the  other  prisoners  at  Myra,  was  a  ship  of  Alexandria 
that  was  sailing  into  Italy.  It  was  evidently  a  merchant- 
vessel,  for  mention  is  made  of  its  lading.  The  nature  of 
the  lading,  however,  is  not  directly  stated.  It  was  capa- 
ble of  receiving  Julius  and  his  company,  and  was  bound 
right  for  them.  This  was  enough,  and  this  was  all  that 
St.  Luke  cares  to  tell.  Yet,  in  verse  38,  we  find,  by  the 
merest  chance,  of  what  its  cargo  consisted.  The  furniture 
of  the  ship,  or  its  "  tackling,"  as  it  is  called,  was  thrown 
overboard  in  the  early  part  of  the  storm ;  but  the  freight 
was  naturally  enough  kept  till  it  could  be  kept  no  longer, 
and  then  we  discover,  for  the  first  time,  that  it  was  wheat 
— "  the  wheat  was  cast  into  the  sea." 

Now  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  Rome  was  in  a  great 
measure  supplied  with  corn  from  Alexandria — that  in 
times  of  scarcity  the  vessels  coming  from  that  port  were 
watched  with  intense  anxiety  as  they  approached  the 


PART  IV.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  327 

coast  of  Italy1 — that  they  were  of  a  size  not  inferior  to  our 
line  of  battle  ships,2  a  thing  by  no  means  usual  in  the  ves- 
sels of  that  day — and  accordingly  that  such  an  one  might 
well  accommodate  the  centurion  and  his  numerous  party, 
in  addition  to  its  own  crew  and  lading. 

There  is  a  very  singular  air  of  truth  in  all  this.  The 
several  detached  verses  at  the  head  of  this  Number  tell  a 
continuous  story,  but  it  is  not  perceived  till  they  are  brought 
together.  The  circumstances  drop  out  one  by  one  at  in- 
tervals in  the  course  of  the  narrative,  unarranged,  unpre- 
meditated, thoroughly  incidental ;  so  that  the  chapter 
might  be  read  twenty  times,  and  their  agreement  with 
one  another  and  with  contemporary  history  be  still  over- 
looked. I  confess,  it  seems  to  me  the  most  unlikely  thing 
in  the  world,  that  a  mere  inventor  of  St.  Paul's  voyage 
should  have  been  able  to  arrange  it  all,  try  how  he  would. 
It  is  possible  that  he  might  have  affected  some  circum- 
stantial detail,  and  so  have  made  St.  Paul  and  his  com- 
panions change  their  ship  at  Myra ;  he  might  have  said 
that  it  was  a  ship  of  Alexandria  bound  for  Italy  ;  but  that 
he  should  have  added,  some  thirty  verses  afterwards,  and 
then  quite  incidentally,  that  its  cargo  was  wheat,  a  fact  so 
curiously  agreeing  with  his  former  assertion  that  the  ves- 
sel was  Alexandrian  and  was  sailing  to  Italy,  argues  a 
subtlety  of  invention  quite  incredible.  But  if  the  account 
of  the  voyage,  as  far  as  relates  to  the  change  of  ship,  the 
tempest,  the  disastrous  consequences,  &c.  is  found,  on  being 
tried  by  a  test  which  the  writer  of  the  Acts  could  never  have 
contemplated,  to  be  an  unquestionable  fact,  ho\v  can  the 
rest,  which  does  not  admit  of  the  same  scrutiny,  be  set 
aside  as  unworthy  of  credit  ? — for  instance,  that  Paul  act- 
ually foretold  the  danger — that  again,  in  the  midst  of  it, 

i  See  Sueton.  Nero.  §.  45.  2  See  Wetstein,  Acts  xxvii.  6. 


328  THE    VERACITY,    ETC.  PART    IV. 

he  foretold  the  final  escape,  and  that  an  angel  had  declared 
to  him  God's  pleasure,  that  for  his  sake  not  a  soul  should 
perish  ?  I  see  no  alternative  but  to  receive  all  this,  nothing 
doubting ;  unless  we  consider  St.  Luke  to  have  mixed  up 
fact  and  fiction  in  a  manner  the  most  artful  and  insidious. 
Yet  who  can  read  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  come  to 
such  a  conclusion  ? 


APPENDIX, 


CONTAINING 


UNDESIGNED  COINCIDENCES  BETWEEN  THE  GOS- 
PELS AND  ACTS,  AND  JOSEPHUS. 


IT  will  not  be  out  of  place,  if  to  a  work  which  has  had 
for  its  object  to  establish  the  veracity  of  the  Scriptures  in 
general,  and  in  the  last  Part,  that  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts 
in  particular,  on  the  evidence  of  undesigned  coincidences 
found  in  them,  when  compared  with  themselves  or  one 
another,  I  subjoin  as  a  cognate  argument,  some  other  in- 
stances of  undesigned  coincidence  between  those  latter 
writings  and  Josephus.  The  subject  has  been  treated,  but 
not  exhausted,  by  Lardner  and  Paley ;  the  latter  of  whom 
indeed  did  not  profess  to  do  more  than  epitomize  that  part 
of  the  "  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  history"  which  considers 
the  works  of  the  Jewish  historian.  Josephus  was  born  A.  D. 
37,  and  therefore  must  have  been  long  the  contemporary 
of  some  of  the  Apostles.  For  my  purpose  it  matters  little, 
or  nothing,  whether  we  reckon  him  a  believer  in  Christi- 
anity or  not ;  whether  he  had,  or  had  not,  seen  the  records 
of  the  Evangelists ;  since  the  examples  of  agreement  be- 
tween him  and  them,  which  I  shall  produce,  will  be  such 
as  are  evidently  without  contrivance,  the  result  of  veracity 
in  both. 

If  we  allow  him  to  be  a  Christian,  if  we  even  allow  him 
28* 


330  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 

to  have  seen  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists,  he  will  never- 
theless be  an  independent  witness,  as  far  as  he  goes,  pro- 
vided his  corroborations  of  the  Gospel  be  clearly  unpremed- 
itated and  incidental.  In  short,  he  will  then  be  received 
like  St.  Mark  or  St.  John,  as  a  partisan  indeed ;  but  yet  as 
a  partisan  who,  upon  cross-examination,  confirms  both  his 
own  statements  and  those  of  his  colleagues. 


I. 


BEFORE  I  bring  forward  individual  examples  of  coinci- 
dence between  Joseph  us  and  the  Evangelists,  I  cannot  help 
remarking  the  effect  which  the  writings  of  the  former  have, 
when  taken  together  and  as  a  whole,  in  convincing  us  of 
the  truth  of  Gospel  history.  No  man,  I  think,  could  rise 
from  a  perusal  of  the  latter  books  of  the  Antiquities,  and 
the  account  of  the  Jewish  War,  without  a  very  strong  im- 
pression, that  the  state  of  Judaea,  civil,  political  and  moral, 
as  far  as  it  can  be  gathered  from  the  Gospels  and  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  is  portrayed  in  these  latter  with  the  greatest 
accuracy,  with  the  strictest  attention  to  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  place  and  the  times.  It  is  impossible  to  im- 
part this  conviction  to  my  readers  in  a  paragraph  ;  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  does  not  admit  of  it ;  it  is  the  result  of  a 
thousand  little  facts,  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  detach 
from  the  general  narrative,  and  which  considered  separately 
might  seem  frivolous  and  fanciful.  We  close  the  pages  of 
Josephus  with  the  feeling  that  we  have  been  reading  of  a 
country,  which,  for  many  years  before  its  final  fall,  had 
been  the  scene  of  miserable  anarchy  and  confusion.  Eve- 
rywhere we  meet  with  open  acts  of  petty  violence,  or  the 
secret  workings  of  plots,  conspiracies,  and  frauds ; — the  laws 
ineffectual,  or  very  partially  observed  and  very  wretchedly 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  331 

administered ; — oppression  on  the  part  of  the  rulers  ; 
amongst  the  people,  faction,  discontent,  seditions,  tumults ; 
— robbers  infesting  the  very  streets,  and  most  public  places 
of  resort,  wandering  about  in  arms,  thirsting  for  blood  no 
less  than  spoil,  assembling  in  troops  to  the  dismay  of  the 
more  peaceable  citizens,  and  with  difficulty  put  down  by 
military  force ; — society,  in  fact,  altogether  out  of  joint. 
Such  would  be  our  view  of  the  condition  of  Judaea,  as  col- 
lected from  Josephus. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  which,  without 
professing  to  treat  about  Judaea  at  all,  nevertheless  by  glimp- 
ses, by  notices  scattered,  uncombined,  never  intended  for 
such  a  purpose,  actually  conveys  to  us  the  very  counterpart 
of  the  picture  in  Josephus.  For  instance,  let  us  observe  the 
character  of  the  parables  ;  stories  evidently  in  many  cases, 
and  probably  in  most  cases,  taken  from  passing  events,  and 
adapted  to  the  occasions  on  which  they  were  delivered.  In 
how  many  may  be  traced  scenes  of  disorder,  of  rapine,  of 
craft,  of  injustice,  as  if  such  scenes  were  but  too  familiar  to 
the  experience  of  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed  ! 
We  hear  of  a  "  man  going  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho, 
and  falling  among  thieves,  which  stripped  him  of  his  rai- 
ment, and  wounded  him,  and  departed,  leaving  him  half 
dead."  (Luke  x.  30.)  Of  another,  who  planted  a  vine- 
yard, and  sent  his  servants  to  receive  the  fruits :  but  the 
"  husbandmen  took  those  servants,  and  beat  one,  and  killed 
another,  and  stoned  another."  (Matth.  xxi.  35.)  Of  a 
"judge  which  feared  not  God  nor  regarded  man,"  and  who 
avenged  the  widow  only  "  lest  by  her  continual  coming 
she  should  weary  him."  (Luke  xviii.  2.)  Of  a  steward 
"  who  was  accused  unto  the  rich  man  of  having  wasted  his 
goods,"  and  who,  by  taking  further  liberties  with  his  mas- 
ter's property,  secured  himself  a  retreat  into  the  houses  of 
his  lord's  debtors,  "  when  he  should  be  put  out  of  the  stew- 


332 


THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 


ardship."  (Luke  xvi.  1.)  Of 'the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man,  like  that  of  a  thief  in  the  night,"  whose  approach  wag 
to  be  watched,  if  the  master  would  "  not  suffer  his  house  to 
be  broken  up."  (Matth.  xxiv.  43.)  Of  a  "  kingdom  divided 
against  itself  being  brought  to  desolation."  Of  a  "  city  or 
house  divided  against  itself  not  being  able  to  stand."  (Matth. 
xii.  25.)  Of  the  necessity  of  "  binding  the  strong  man"  be- 
fore "entering  into  his  house  and  spoiling  his  goods." 
(Matth.  xii.  29.)  Of  the  folly  of  "  laying  up  for  ourselves 
treasures  upon  earth,  where  moth  and  rust  doth  corrupt, 
and  where  thieves  break  through  and  steal/'  (Matt.  vi.  19.) 
Of  the  enemy  who  had  maliciously  sown  tares  amongst  his 
neighbor's  wheat,  "and  went  his  way."  (Matth.  xiii.  25.) 
Of  the  man  who  found  a  treasure  in  another's  field,  and 
cunningly  sold  all  that  he  had,  and  "  bought  that  field." 
(xiii.  44,)  These  instances  may  suffice.  Neither  is  it  to 
the  parables  only  that  we  must  look  for  our  proofs.  Many 
historical  incidents  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  speak  the  same 
language.  Thus  when  Jesus  would  "  have  entered  into  a 
village  of  the  Samaritans,"  they  would  not  receive  him, 
upon  which  his  disciples,  James  and  John,  who  no  doubt 
partook  in  the  temper  of  the  times,  proposed  "  that  fire  should 
be  commanded  to  come  down  from  heaven  and  consume 
them.5'  (Luke  ix.  52.)  Again,  when  Jesus  had  offended 
the  people  of  Nazareth  by  his  preaching,  they  made  no 
scruple  "  of  rising  up  and  thrusting  him  out  of  the  city,  and 
leading  him  unto  the  brow  of  the  hill  whereon  the  city  was 
built,  that  they  might  cast  him  down  headlong,"  (Luke  iv. 
19) ;  and,  on  another  occasion,  after  he  had  been  speaking 
in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  "  the  Jews  took  up  stones  to 
stone  him,"  but  he  "  escaped  out  of  their  hand."  (John  x. 
31.)  Again,  we  are  told  of  certain  "  Galiheans  whose  blood 
Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices."  (Luke  xiii.  1.) 
And  when  our  Lord  was  at  last  seized,  it  was  a  by  a  great 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  333 

multitude  with  swords  and  staves,"  (Matth.  xxvi.  47,)  as 
in  a  country  where  nothing  but  brute  force  could  avail  to 
carry  a  warrant  into  execution.  So  again,  Barabbas,  whom 
the  Jews  would  have  released  instead  of  Jesus,  was  one 
"  who  lay  bound  with  them  that  had  made  insurrection 
with  him,  who  had  committed  murder  in  the  insurrection." 
(Mark  xv.  7.)  And  when  he  was  at  length  crucified,  it 
was  between  two  thieves. 

Let  us  trace  the  times  somewhat  further,  and  we  shall 
discover  no  amendment,  but  rather  the  contrary;  as  we 
learn  from  Josephus  wras  the  case  on  the  nearer  approach 
to  the  breaking  out  of  the  war.  Thus  Stephen  is  tumultu- 
ously  stoned  to  death.  (Acts  viii.  58.)  And  "  Saul  made 
havoc  of  the  church,  entering  into  every  house,  and  taking 
men  and  women,  committed  them  to  prison."  (viii.  3.)  But 
when  Saul's  own  turn  came  that  he  should  be  persecuted, 
what  a  continued  scene  of  violence  and  outrage  is  presented 
to  us  !  Turn  we  to  the  21st,  22nd,  and  23rd  chapters  of 
the  Acts.  It  might  be  Josephus  that  is  speaking  in  them. 
Paul,  on  his  coming  to  Jerusalem,  is  obliged  to  have  re- 
course to  a  stratagem  to  conciliate  the  people,  because  "  the 
multitude  would  needs  come  together,  for  they  would  hear 
that  he  was  come."  Still  it  was  in  vain.  A  hue  and  cry 
is  raised  against  him  by  a  few  persons  who  had  known  him 
in  Asia,  and  forthwith  "  all  the  city  is  moved,  and  the  peo- 
ple run  together  and  take  Paul,  and  draw  him  out  of  the 
temple."  The  Roman  garrison  gets  under  arms  and  hast- 
ens to  rescue  Paul :  but  still  is  it  needful  that  "  he  be  borne 
of  the  soldiers,  for  the  violence  of  the  people."  He  makes 
nis  defence.  They,  however,  "  cry  out,  and  cast  off  their 
clothes,  and  throw  dust  in  the  air."  He  is  brought  before 
the  council,  and  the  high-priest  commands  them  that  stand 
by  him  to  strike  him  on  the  mouth."  He  now,  with  much 
dexterity,  divides  his  enemies,  by  declaring  himself  a  Phar- 


334  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  APPEND. 

isee  and  a  believer  in  the  resurrection.  This  was  enough 
to  set  them  again  at  strife ;  for  then  there  arose  a  dissen- 
sion between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, — and  such  was 
its  fury,  that  "  the  captain,  fearing  Paul  should  be  pulled 
in  pieces  by  them,  commands  his  soldiers  to  go  down  and 
take  him  by  force  from  among  them."  No  sooner  is  he 
rescued  from  the  multitude,  than  forty  persons  and  more 
"  bind  themselves  by  a  curse  to  kill  him"  when  he  should 
be  next  brought  before  the  council.  Intelligence  of  this 
plot,  however,  is  conveyed  to  the  captain  of  the  guard,  who 
determines  to  send  him  to  Caesarea,  to  Felix  the  governor. 
The  escort  necessary  to  attend  this  single  prisoner  to  his 
place  of  destination  is  no  less  than  four  hundred  and  sev- 
enty men,  horse  and  foot,  and,  as  a  further  measure  of 
safety  and  precaution,  they  are  ordered  to  set  out  at  the 
third  hour  of  the  night.  All  these  things,  I  say,  are  in 
strict  agreement  with  the  state  of  Judeea  as  it  is  represented 
by  Josephus.  And  it  might  be  added,  that  independently 
of  such  consideration,  an  argument  for  the  truth  of  the 
Gospels  and  Acts  results  from  the  harmony  upon  this  point 
which  prevails  throughout  them  all :  a  circumstance  which 
I  might  have  dwelt  upon  in  the  former  section,  but  which 
it  will  be  enough  to  have  noticed  here. 

But  further,  a  perusal  of  the  writings  of  Josephus  leaves 
another  impression  upon  our  minds  that  there  was  a  very 
considerable  intercourse  between  Judeea  and  Rome.  To 
Rome  we  find  causes  and  litigations  very  constantly  re- 
ferred— thither  are  the  Jews  perpetually  resorting  in  search 
of  titles  and  offices — there  it  is  that  they  make  known  their 
grievances,  explain  their  errors,  supplicate  pardons,  set  forth 
their  claims  to  favor,  and  return  their  thanks.  Neither  are 
there  wanting  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which 
would  lead  us  to  the  same  conclusion ;  rather  however 
casually,  by  allusion,  by  an  expression  incidentally  pre- 


APPEND.  GOSPELS   AND   ACTS  3o5 

senting  itself,  than  by  any  direct  communication  on  the 
subject.  Hence  may  we  discover,  for  instance,  the  pro- 
priety of  that  phrase  so  often  occurring  in  the  parables  and 
elsewhere,  of  men  going  for  various  purposes  "  into  a  far 
country." 

Thus  we  read  that  "  the  Son  of  man  is  as  a  man  taking 
a  far  journey,  who  left  his  house  and  gave  authority  to 
his  servants,  and  to  every  man  his  work,  and  commanded 
the  porter  to  watch."  (Mark  xiii.  34.)  And  again,  that  a 
certain  nobleman  went  into  a  far  country  to  receive  for 
himself  a  kingdom,  and  to  return.  (Luke  xix.  12.)  And 
again,  that  the  prodigal  son,  "gathered  all  together,  and 
took  his  journey  into  a  far  country,  and  there  wasted  his 
substance  in  riotous  living."  (Luke  xv.  13).  And  again, 
that  "  a  certain  householder  planted  a  vineyard,  and  hedged 
it  round  about,  and  digged  a  winepress  in  it,  and  built  a 
tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went  into  a  far 
country"  (Matth.  xxi.  33.)  Moreover,  it  is  probable  that 
this  political  relationship  of  Judaea  to  Rome,  the  seat  of 
government,  from  whence  all  the  honors  and  gainful  posts 
were  distributed,  suggested  the  use  of  those  metaphors, 
which  abound  in  the  New  Testament,  of  the  "  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  of  "  seeking  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  of  "  giving 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  the  like.  All  I  mean  to 
affirm  is  this,  that  such  allusions  and  such  figures  of  speech 
would  very  naturally  present  themselves  to  a  Teacher  sit- 
uated as  the  Gospel  represents  Jesus  to  have  been — and 
therefore  go  to  prove  that  such  representation  is  the  truth. 


II. 

Matth.  ii.  3.—"  When  Herod  the  king  had  heard  these 
things,  he  was  troubled,  and  all  Jerusalem  with  him. 


336  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 

And  when  he  had  gathered  all  the  chief  priests  and 
scribes  of  the  people  together,  he  demanded  of  them 
where  Christ  should  be  born." 

NOR  was  he  yet  satisfied  ;  for  he  "privily  called  the 
wise  men.  and  inquired  of  them  diligently  what  time  the 
star  appeared."  (ver.  7.)  And  when  they  did  not  return 
from  Bethlehem,  as  he  expected,  he  seems  to  have  been 
still  more  apprehensive,  "  exceeding  wroth."  (ver.  16.) 

Such  a  transaction  as  this  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  the 
character  of  Herod,  as  we  may  gather  it  from  Josepllus. 
He  was  always  in  fear  for  the  stability  of  his  throne,  and 
anxious  to  pry  into  futurity  that  he  might  discover  whether 
it  was  likely  to  endure. 

Thus  we  read  in  Josephus  of  a  certain  Essene,  Manahem 
by  name,  who  had  foretold,  whilst  Herod  was  yet  a  boy, 
that  he  was  destined  to  be  a  king.  Accordingly,  "  when 
he  was  actually  advanced  to  that  dignity,  and  in  the  plen- 
itude of  his  power,  he  sent  for  Manahem  and  inquired  of 
him  how  long  he  should  reign  ?  Manahem  did  not  tell 
him  the  precise  period.  Whereupon  he  questioned  him 
further,  whether  he  should  reign  ten  years  or  not  ?  He  re- 
plied, Yes,  twenty,  nay,  thirty  years  ;  but  he  did  not  as- 
sign a  limit  to  the  continuance  of  his  empire.  With  these 
answers  Herod  was  satisfied,  and  giving  Manahem  his 
hand,  dismissed  him,  and  from  that  time  he  never  ceased 
to  honor  all  the  Essenes."  (Antiq.  xv.  20.  §  5.) 


III. 

Matth.  ii.  22. — "  But  when  he  heard  that  Archelaus  did 
reign  in  Judea  in  the  room  of  his  father  Herod,  he 
was  afraid  to  go  thither." 
ON  the  death  of  Herod,  Joseph  was  commanded  to  re- 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  337 

(urn  to  the  land  of  Israel,  and  "  he  arose  and  took  the 
young  child"  and  went.  However,  before  he  began  his 
journey,  or  whilst  he  was  yet  in  the  way,  he  was  told  that 
Archelaus  did  reign  in  Judsea  in  the  room  of  his  father 
Herod  ;  on  which  he  was  afraid  to  go  thither.  Archelaus, 
therefore,  must  have  been  notorious  for  his  cruelty  (it 
should  seem)  very  soon  indeed  after  coming  to  his  throne. 
Nothing  short  of  this  could  account  for  the  sudden  resolu- 
tion of  Joseph  to  avoid  him  with  so  much  speed. 

Now  it  is  remarkable  enough,  that  at  the  very  first 
passover  after  Herod's  death,  even  before  Archelaus  had 
yet  had  time  to  set  out  for  Rome  to  obtain  the  ratifica- 
tion of  his  authority  from  the  emperor,  he  was  guilty  of  an 
act  of  outrage  and  bloodshed,  under  circumstances  above 
all  others  fitted  to  make  it  generally  and  immediately 
known.  One  of  the  last  deeds  of  his  father,  Herod,  had 
been  to  put  to  death  Judas  and  Matthias,  two  persons  who 
had  instigated  some  young  men  to  pull  down  a  golden 
eagle,  which  Herod  had  fixed  over  the  gate  of  the  Temple, 
contrary,  as  they  conceived,  to  the  law  of  Moses.  The 
hapless  fate  of  these  martyrs  to  the  law  excited  great  com- 
miseration at  the  Passover  which  ensued.  The  parties, 
however,  who  uttered  their  lamentations  aloud  were 
silenced  by  Archelaus,  the  new  king,  in  the  following 
manner : — 

"  He  sent  out  all  the  troops  against  them,  and  ordered 
the  horsemen  to  prevent  those  who  had  their  tents  outside 
the  Temple  from  rendering  assistance  to  those  who  were 
within  it,  and  to  put  to  death  such  as  might  escape  from 
the  foot.  The  cavalry  slew  nearly  three  thousand  men, 
the  rest  betook  themselves  for  safety  to  the  neighboring 
mountains.  Then  Archelaus  commanded  proclamation  to 
be  made,  that  they  should  all  retire  to  their  own  homes. 

29 


338  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 

So  they  went  away,  and  left  the  festival  out  of  fear  lest 
somewhat  worse  should  ensue"  (Antiq.  xvii.  9.  §  3.) 

We  must  bear  in  mind,  that  at  the  Passover  Jews  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  were  assembled  ;  so  that  any  event 
which  occurred  at  Jerusalem  during  that  great  feast  would 
be  speedily  reported  on  their  return  to  the  countries  where 
they  dwelt.  Such  a  massacre,  therefore,  at  such  a  season, 
would  at  once  stamp  the  character  of  Archelaus.  The 
fear  of  him  would  naturally  enough  spread  itself  wherever 
a  Jew  was  to  be  found  ;  and,  in  fact,  so  well  remembered 
was  this  first  essay  at  governing  the  people,  that  several 
years  afterwards  it  was  brought  against  him  with  great 
effect  on  his  appearance  before  Caesar  at  Rome. 

It  is  the  more  probable  that  this  act  of  cruelty  inspired 
Joseph  with  his  dread  of  Archelaus,  because  that  prince 
could  not  have  been  much  known  before  he  came  to  the 
throne,  never  having  had  any  public  employment,  or,  in- 
deed, future  destination,  like  his  half-brother,  Antipater, 
whereby  he  might  have  discovered  himself  to  the  nation 
at  large.1 


IV. 

Matth.  xvii.  24. — "  And  when  they  were  come  to  Caper- 
naum, they  that  received  tribute-money  came  to 
Peter,  and  said,  Doth  not  your  master  pay  tribute? 
He  saith,  Yes." 

THE  word  which  is  translated  tribute-money  is  in  the 
original  " the  didrachma"  of  which  indeed  notice  is  given 
m  the  margin  of  our  Version  ;  and  it  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  this  tax  seems  not  to  have  been  designated  by  any 

1  Lardner  briefly  alludes  to  this  transaction,  but  has  not  made  the  best  of 
his  argument. — Vol.  i.  p.  14.  8vo.  ed. 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  339 

general  name,  such  for  instance  as  tribute,  custom,  (fee., 
but  actually  had  the  specific  appellation  of  "the  didrach- 
mar  Thus  Joseph  us  writes  :  "  Nisibis  too  is  a  city  sur- 
rounded by  the  same  river  (the  Euphrates) ;  wherefore  the 
Jews,  trusting  to  the  nature  of  its  position,  deposited  there 
the  didrachma.  which  it  is  customary  for  each  individual 
to  pay  to  God  ;  as  well  as  their  other  offerings." — (Antiq. 
xviii.  10.  §  1.) 

There  is  something  which  indicates  veracity  in  the 
Evangelist,  to  be  correct  in  a  trifle  like  this.  He  makes 
no  mistake  in  the  sum  paid  to  the  Temple,  nor  does  he 
express  himself  by  a  general  term,  such  as  would  have 
concealed  his  ignoranee,  but  hits  upon  the  exact  payment 
that  was  made,  and  the  name  that  was  given  it. 

It  may  be  added,  that  St.  Matthew  uses  the  word 
didrachma  without  the  smallest  explanation,  which  is  not 
the  case,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Joseph  us  ;  yet  the  argu- 
ment of  Jesus  which  follows  would  be  quite  unintelligible 
to  those  who  did  not  know  for  whose  service  this  tribute- 
money  was  paid.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  Evan- 
list  thought  there  could  be  no  obscurity  in  the  term ;  that 
it  was  much  too  familiar  with  his  readers  to  need  a  com- 
ment. Now  the  use  of  it  probably  ceased  with  the  des- 
truction of  the  Temple  ;  after  which  but  few  years  would 
elapse  before  some  interpretation  would  be  necessary,  more 
especially  as  the  term  itself  does  not  in  the  least  imply  the 
nature  of  the  tax,  but  only  its  individual  amount.  The 
undesigned  omission  of  everything  of  this  kind,  on  the 
part  of  St.  Matthew,  pretty  clearly  proves  the  Gospel  to 
have  been  written  before  the  Temple  was  destroyed. 


340  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 


V. 


Matth.  xxii.  23. — "  The  same  day  came  to  him  the  Sad- 
ducees,  which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection,  and 
asked  him,"  &c. 

IT  is  very  unusual  to  find  in  St.  Matthew  a  paragraph 
like  this,  explanatory  of  Jewish  opinions  or  practices.  In 
general  it  is  quite  characteristic  of  him,  and  a  circumstance 
which  distinguishes  him  from  the  other  Evangelists,  that 
he  presumes  upon  his  readers  being  perfectly  familiar  with 
Judaea  and  all  that  pertains  to  it.  St.  Mark,  in  treating 
the  same  subjects,  is  generally  found  to  enlarge  upon  them 
much  more,  as  though  conscious  that  he  had  those  to  deal 
with  who  were  not  thoroughly  conversant  with  Jewish 
affairs. 

Compare  the  following  parallel  passages  in  these  two 
Evangelists. 

Matth.  ix.  14. — "  Then  came  to  him  the  disciples  of 
John,  saying,  Why  do  we  and  the  Pharisees  fast  oft,  but 
thy  disciples  fast  not  ?" 

Mark  ii.  18. — "  And  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the 
Pharisees  used  to  fast :  and  they  come  and  say  unto  him, 
Why  do  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees  fast, 
but  thy  disciples  fast  not  ?" 

Matth.  xv.  1. — "  Then  came  to  Jesus  Scribes  and  Phar- 
isees, which  were  of  Jerusalem,  saying,  Why  do  thy  dis- 
ciples transgress  the  tradition  of  the  Elders  ?  for  they  wash 
not  their  hands  when  they  eat  bread.  But  he  answered 
and  said  unto  them,"  &c. 

Mark  vii. — "  Then  came  together  unto  him  the  Phari- 
sees, and  certain  of  the  Scribes,  which  came  from  Jerusa- 
lem. And  when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread 
with  defiled,  that  is  to  say,  with  unwashen  hands,  they 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  341 

found  fault.  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition 
of  the  Elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market, 
except  they  wash,  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  wash- 
ing of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables. 
Then  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  asked  him,  Why  walk  not 
thy  disciples  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Elders,  but 
eat  bread  with  unwashen  hands?"  &c. 

Matth.  xxvii.  62. — "  Now  the  next  day  that  followed  the 
day  of  the  Preparation,  the  Chief  Priests  and  Pharisees 
came  together,"  &c. 

Mark  xv.  42. — "  And  now  when  the  even  was  come,  be- 
cause it  was  the  Preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the 
Sabbath?  <fec. 

These  examples  (to  which  many  more  might  be  added) 
may  suffice  to  show  the  manner  of  St.  Matthew  as  com- 
pared with  that  of  another  of  the  Evangelists ;  that  it 
dealt  little  in  explanation.  How  then  does  it  happen  that 
in  the  instance  before  us  he  deviates  from  his  ordinary,  al- 
most his  uniform,  practice  ;  and  whilst  writing  for  Jews, 
thinks  it  necessary  to  inform  them  of  so  notorious  a  tenet 
of  the  Sadducees  (for  such  we  might  suppose  it)  as  their 
disbelief  in  a  resurrection  ?  Would  not  his  Jewish  readers 
have  known  at  once,  and  on  the  mere  mention  of  the  name 
of  this  sect,  that  he  was  speaking  of  persons  who  denied 
that  doctrine  ? 

Let  us  turn  to  Josephus,  (Antiq.  xviii.  1.  §  4,)  and  w 
shall  find  him  throwing  some  light  upon  our  inquiry. 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees  is,  that  the  soul  and 
body  perish  together.  The  law  is  all  that  they  are  con- 
cerned to  observe.  They  consider  it  commendable  to  con- 
trovert the  opinions  of  masters  even  of  their  own  school 
of  philosophy.  This  doctrine,  however,  has  not  many 

29* 


342 


THE    VERACITY    OP   THE  APPEND. 


followers,  but  those  persons  of  the  highest  rank — next 
to  nothing  of  public  business  falls  into  their  hands.'' 
Thus,  we  see,  it  was  very  possible  for  the  people  of  Judsea, 
though  well  acquainted  with  most  of  the  local  peculiarities 
of  their  country,  to  be  ignorant,  or  at  least,  ill-informed,  of 
the  dogmas  of  a  sect,  insignificant  in  numbers,  removed 
from  them  by  station,  and  seldom  or  never  brought  into 
contact  with  them  by  office ;  and  therefore  that  St.  Matthew 
was  not  wasting  words,  when  he  explained  in  this  instance, 
though  in  so  many  other  instances  he  had  withheld  ex- 
planation.1 


VI. 


Matth.  xxvi.  5. — "  But  they  said,  Not  on  the  feast  day, 
lest  there  be  an  uproar  among"  the  people." 

I  HAVE  already  alluded  to  the  insubordinate  condition 
of  Judc&a  in  general,  about  the  period  of  our  Lord's  min- 
istry. We  have  here  an  example  of  the  feverish  and  irri- 
table state  of  the  capital  itself,  in  particular,  during  the 
feast  of  the  Passover. 

"  The  feast  of  the  Passover,"  says  Josephus,  (who  re- 
lates an  event  that  happened  some  few  years  after  Christ's 
death,)  "  being  at  hand,  wherein  it  is  our  custom  to  use 
unleavened  bread,  and  a  great  multitude  being  drawn  to- 
gether from  all  parts  to  the  feast,  Cumanus  (the  governor) 
fearing  that  some  disturbance  might  fall  out  amongst 
them,  commands  one  cohort  of  soldiers  to  arm  themselves 
and  stand  in  the  porticoes  of  the  Temple,  to  suppress 
any  riot  which  might  occur  ;  and  this  precaution  the 

i  See  Hug's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  11.  p.  7.    Transla- 
tion by  the  Rev.  D.  G.  Wait. 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  343 

governors  of  Judcea  before  him  had  adopted" — (Antiq. 
xx.  4.  §  3.) 

In  spite,  however,  of  these  prudent  measures,  a  tumult 
irose  on  this  very  occasion,  in  which,  according  to  Jose- 
twenty  thousand  Jews  perished. 


VII. 

Mark  v.  1. — "  And  they  came  over  unto  the  other  side  of 
the  sea,  into  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes"  &c. 

11. — "Now  there  were  nigh  unto  the  mountains  many 
swine  feeding. 

HERE  it  might  at  first  seem  that  St.  Mark  had  been 
betrayed  into  an  oversight — for  since  swine  were  held  in 
abhorrence  by  the  Jews  as  unclean,  how  (it  might  be 
asked)  did  it  happen  that  a  herd  of  them  were  feeding  on 
the  side  of  the  sea  of  Tiberias  ? 

The  objection,  however,  only  serves  to  prove  yet  more 
the  accuracy  of  the  Evangelist,  and  his  intimate  knowl- 
edge of  the  local  circumstances  of  Judea ;  for  on  turning 
to  Josephus,  (Antiq.  xvii.  13.  §  4,)  we  find  that  "  Turris 
Stratonis,  and  Sebaste,  and  Joppa,  and  Jerusalem,  were 
made  subject  to  Archelaus,  but  that  Gaza,  Gadara,  and 
Hippos,  being  Grecian  cities,  were  annexed  by  Caesar  to 
Syria."  This  fact,  therefore,  is  enough  to  account  for 
swine  being  found  amongst  the  Gadarenes. 


VIII. 

Mark  vi.  21. — "  And  when  a  convenient  day  was  come, 
that  Herod  on  his  birth-day  made  a  supper  to  his 
lords,  high  captains,  and  chief  estates  of  Galilee  ; 


344  THE    VERACITY   OF   THE  APPEND 

and  when  the  daughter  of  the  said  Herodias  came  in, 
and  danced,"  &c. 

IT  is  curious  and  worthy  of  remark,  that  a  feast,  under 
exactly  similar  circumstances,  is  incidentally  described  by 
Joseph  us,  as  made  by  Herod,  the  brother  of  Herodias,  and 
successor  of  this  prince  in  his  government.  "  Having 
made  a  feast  on  his  birth-day,  (writes  Josephus,)  when 
all  under  his  command  partook  of  the  mirth,  he  sent 
for  Silas,"  (an  officer  whom  he  had  cast  into  prison  for 
taking  liberties  with  him,)  and  "  offered  him  his  freedom 
and  a  seat  at  the  banquet."  (Antiq.  xix.  7.  §  1.)  This,  I 
say,  is  a  coincidence  worth  notice,  because  it  proves  that 
these  birth-day  feasts  were  observed  in  the  family  of 
Herod,  and  that  it  was  customary  to  assemble  the  officers 
of  government  to  share  in  them. 


IX. 

Mark  xiv.  1 3. — "  And  he  sendeth  forth  two  of  his  disciples, 
and  saith  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  the  city,  and  there 
shall  meet  you  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water : 
follow  him.  And  wheresoever  he  shall  go  in,  say  ye 
to  the  goodman  of  the  house.  The  Master  saith, 
Where  is  the  guest-chamber,  where  I  shall  eat  the 
Passover  with  my  disciples  ?" 

WHEN  Cestius  wished  to  inform  Nero  of  the  numbers 
which  attended  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem,  he  counted  the 
victims,  and  allowed  ten  persons  to  each  head,  "  because  a 
company  not  less  than  ten  belong  to  every  sacrifice,  (for  it 
is  not  lawful  for  them  to  feast  singly  by  themselves,)  and 
many  are  twenty  in  company." — Bell.  Jud.  c.  vi.  9.  §  3. 

Accordingly,  the  Gospel  narrative  is  in  strict  conformity 
with  this  custom.  When  Christ  goes  up  to  Jerusalem  to 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  345 

attend  the  Passover  for  the  last  time,  he  is  not  described 
as  running  the  chance  of  hospitality  in  the  houses  of  any 
of  his  friends,  because,  on  this  occasion,  the  parties  would 
be  made  up,  and  the  addition  of  thirteen  guests  might  be 
inconvenient,  but  he  sends  forth  beforehand,  from  Bethany, 
most  probably,  two  of  his  disciples  to  the  city,  with  orders 
to  engage  a  room,  (a  precaution  very  necessary  where  so 
many  companies  would  be  seeking  accommodation,)  and 
there  eats  the  Passover  with  his  followers,  a  party  of  thir- 
teen, which  it  appears  was  about  the  usual  number.1 


X. 


Luke  ii.  42. — "  And  when  he  was  twelve  years  old,  they 
went  up  to  Jerusalem,  after  the  custom  of  the  feast." 

I  AM  aware  that  commentators  upon  this  text  quote  the 
Rabbins,  to  show  that  children  of  twelve  years  old  amongst 
the  Jews  were  considered  to  be  entering  the  estate  of  man- 
hood, (see  Wetstein.)  and  that  on  this  account  it  was  that 
Jesus  was  taken  at  that  age  to  the  Passover.  Such  may 
be  the  true  interpretation  of  the  passage.  I  cannot,  how- 
ever, forbear  offering  a  conjecture  which  occurred  to  me 
in  reading  the  history  of  Archelaus. 

The  birth  of  Christ  probably  preceded  the  death  of  Herod 
by  a  year  and  a  half  or  thereabout.  (See  Lardner,  Vol.  i. 
p.  352.  8vo.  edit.)  Archelaus  succeeded  Herod,  and  gov- 
erned the  country,  it  should  seem,  about  ten  years.  "  In 
the  tenth  year  of  Archelaus'  reign  the  chief  governors 
among  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  unable  any  longer  to  en- 
dure his  cruelty  and  tyranny,  accused  him  before  Caesar." 
Caesar  upon  this  sent  for  him  to  Rome,  and  "  as  soon  as  he 

i  See  Whiston's  Note  upon  Joseph.  B.  J.  vi.  9.  3. 


346  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND 

came  to  Rome,  when  the  Emperor  had  heard  his  accusers, 
and  his  defence,  he  banished  him  to  Vienne  in  France,  and 
confiscated  his  goods." — Antiq.  xvii.  c.  15.  The  removal, 
therefore,  of  this  obnoxious  governor,  appears  to  have  been 
effected  in  our  Lord's  twelfth  year.  Might  not  this  circum- 
stance account  for  the  parents  of  the  child  Jesus  venturing 
to  take  him  to  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover  when  he  was 
twelve  years  old,  and  not  before?  It  was  only  because 
"  Archelaus  reigned  in  Judaea  in  the  room  of  his  father 
Herod,"  that  Joseph  was  afraid  to  go  thither  on  his  return 
from  Egypt ;  influenced  not  merely  by  motives  of  personal 
safety,  but  by  the  consideration  that  the  same  jealousy 
which  had  urged  Herod  to  take  away  the  young  child's 
life,  might  also  prevail  with  his  successor  ;  for  we  do  not 
find  that  any  fears  about  himself  or  Mary  withheld  him 
from  subsequently  going  to  the  Passover  even  during  the 
reign  of  Archelaus,  since  it  is  recorded  that  "  they  went  ev- 
ery year."  I  submit  it,  therefore,  to  my  readers'  decision, 
whether  the  same  apprehensions  for  the  life  of  the  infant 
Jesus,  which  prevented  Joseph  from  taking  him  into  Judsca, 
on  hearing  that  Archelaus  was  king,  did  not,  very  proba- 
bly, prevent  him  from  taking  him  up  to  Jerusalem  till  he 
heard  that  Archelaus  was  deposed  ? 


XI. 


Luke  vi.  13. — "  And  when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto  him 
his  disciples  ;  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also 
he  named  Apostles." 

x.  1. — "  After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed  other  seventy 

also,  and  sent  them  two  and  two  before  his  face,"  &c. 

THERE  is  something  in  the  selection  of  these  numbers 

which  indicates  veracity  in  the  narrative.     They  were,  on 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  347 

several  accounts,  favorite  numbers  amongst  the  Jews  :  the 
one  (to  name  no  other  reason)  being  that  of  the  Tribes,  the 
other  (taken  roundly)  that  of  the  Elders.  Accordingly  we 
read  in  Joseph  us,  that  Yarns,  who  held  a  post  in  the  gov- 
ernment under  Agrippa,  "  called  to  him  twelve  Jews  of 
Ceesarea,  of  the  best  character,  and  ordered  them  to  go  to 
Ecbatana,  and  bear  this  message  to  their  countrymen  who 
dwelt  there :  £  Varus  hath  heard  that  you  intend  to  march 
against  the  king  ;  but  not  believing  the  report  he  hath  sent 
us  to  persuade  you  to  lay  down  your  arms,  counting  such 
compliance  to  be  a  sign  that  he  did  well  not  to  give  credit 
to  those  who  so  spake  concerning  you.'"  "He  also  en- 
joined those  Jews  of  Ecbatana  to  send  seventy  of  their  prin- 
cipal men  to  make  a  defence  for  them  touching  the  accu- 
sation laid  against  them.  So  when  the  twelve  messengers 
came  to  their  countrymen  at  Ecbatana,  and  found  that 
they  had  no  designs  of  innovation  at  all,  they  persuaded 
them  to  send  the  seventy  also.  Then  went  these  seventy 
down  to  Caesarea  together  with  the  twelve  ambassadors." 
— (Life  of  Josephtis,  §  11). 

This  is  a  very  slight  matter  to  be  sure,  but  it  is  still 
something  to  find  the  subordinate  parts  of  a  history  in 
strict  keeping  with  the  habits  of  the  people  and  of  the  age 
to  which  it  professes  to  belong.  The  Evangelist  might 
have  fixed  upon  any  other  indifferent  number  for  the  Apos- 
tles and  first  Disciples  of  Jesus,  without  thereby  incurring 
any  impeachment  of  a  want  of  veracity  ;  and  therefore  it 
is  the  more  satisfactory  to  discover  marks  of  truth,  where 
the  absence  of  such  marks  would  not  have  occasioned  the 


348  THE    VERACITY    OP    THE  APPEND. 

XII. 

Luke  vii.  1. — "  Now  when  he  had  ended  all  these  sayings 
in  the  audience  of  the  people,  he  entered  into  Caper- 
naum." 

11. — "  And  it  came  to  pass  the  day  after,  that  he  went  into 
a  city  called  Nain ;  and  many  of  his  disciples  went 
with  him,  and  much  people." 

JESUS  comes  to  Capernaum — he  goes  on  to  Nain — fame 
precedes  him  as  he  approaches  Judaea — he  arrives  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  Baptist — he  travels  still  further  south 
to  the  vicinity  of  the  Holy  City,  near  which  the  Magdalen 
dwelt — St.  Luke,  therefore,  it  will  he  perceived,  is  here  de- 
scribing a  journey  of  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem. 

Now  let  us  hear  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  5.  §  1) :  "A  quar- 
rel sprung  up  between  the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews,  and 
this  was  the  cause  of  it.  The  Galileeans,  when  they  re- 
sorted to  the  Holy  City  at  the  feasts,  had  to  pass  through 
the  country  of  the  Samaritans.  Now  it  happened  that 
certain  inhabitants  of  a  place  on  the  road,  Nain  by  name, 
situated  on  the  borders  of  Samaria  and  the  Great  Plain, 
rose  upon  them  and  slew  many."1 

Jesus,  therefore,  in  this  his  journey  southwards,  (a  jour- 
ney, be  it  observed,  which  the  Evangelist  does  not  formally 
lay  down,  but  the  general  direction  of  which  we  gather 
from  an  incident  or  two  occurring  in  the  course  of  it.  and 
from  the  point  to  which  it  tended,)  Jesus  in  this  his  jour- 
ney is  found  to  come  to  a  city  which,  it  appears,  did  actu- 
ally lie  in  the  way  of  those  who  travelled  from  Galilee  to 

1  Hudson  reads  KW/H/J  Ttvaias  Xeyo/ici/ijf,  instead  of  Nai'f,  the  common  read- 
ing ;  but  see  Hug's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  i.  p.  23,  (trans- 
lation), where  the  coincidence  is  suggested,  and  the  reasons  given  for  abid- 
ing by  the  ordinary  text. 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  349 

Jerusalem.  This  is  as  it  should  be.  Apart  of  the  story  is 
certainly  matter  of  fact.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe 
the  Evangelist  when  he  says  that  Jesus  "  went  into  a  city 
called  Nain."  What  reason  is  there  to  disbelieve  him  when 
he  goes  on  to  say,  that  he  met  a  dead  man  at  the  gate; 
that  he  touched  the  bier ;  bade  the  young  man  arise  ;  and 
that  the  dead  sat  up  and  spake  ? 


XIII. 

Luke  xxiii.  6. — "  When  Pilate  heard  of  Galilee,  he  asked 
whether  the  man  were  a  Galileean.  And  as  soon  as 
he  knew  that  he  belonged  unto  Herod's  jurisdiction 
he  sent  him  to  Herod,  who  himself  ALSO  was  at  Jeru- 
salem at  that  time." 

THE  fair  inference  from  this  last  clause  is,  that  Jerusa- 
lem was  not  the  common  place  of  abode  either  of  Herod 
or  Pilate.  Such  is  certainly  the  force  of  the  emphatic  ex- 
pression, "who  himself  also  was  at  Jerusalem  at  that 
time,"  applied,  as  it  is,  directly  to  Herod,  but  with  a  refer- 
ence to  the  person  of  whom  mention  had  been  made  in 
the  former  part  of  the  sentence.  The  more  circuitous  this 
insinuation  is,  the  stronger  does  it  make  for  the  argument. 
Now  that  Herod  did  not  reside  at  Jerusalem,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  following  passage  in  Josephus. 

"  This  king"  (says  he,  meaning  the  Herod  who  killed 
James,  the  brother  of  John,  Acts  xii.)  "  was  not  at  all  like 
that  Herod  who  reigned  before  him,  (meaning  the  Herod 
to  whom  Christ  was  sent  by  Pilate,)  for  the  latter  was 
stern  and  severe  in  his  punishments,  and  had  no  mercy  on 
those  he  hated  :  confessedly  better  disposed  towards  the 
Greeks  than  the  Jews :  accordingly,  of  the  cities  of  the 
strangers,  some  he  beautified  at  his  own  expense  with 

30 


350  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 

baths  and  theatres,  and  others  with  temples  and  corridors  ; 
but  upon  no  Jewish  city  did  he  bestow  the  smallest  decora- 
tion or  the  most  trifling  present.  Whereas  the  latter  Herod 
(Agrippa)  was  of  a  mild  and  gentle  disposition,  and  good 
to  all  men.  To  strangers  he  was  beneficent,  but  yet  more 
kind  to  the  Jews,  his  countrymen,  with  whom  he  sympa- 
thized in  all  their  troubles.  He  took  pleasure  therefore  in 
constantly  living  at  Jerusalem,  and  strictly  observed  all 
the  customs  of  his  nation." — Antiq.  xix.  7.  §  3.  Thus 
does  it  appear  from  the  Jewish  historian,  that  the  Herod 
of  the  Acts  was  a  contrast  to  the  Herod  in  question,  inas- 
much as  he  loved  the  Jews  that  dwelt  at  Jerusalem.  Nor 
is  St.  Luke  less  accurate  in  representing  Pilate  (o  have 
been  not  resident  at  Jerusalem.  Caesarea  seems  to  have 
been  the  place  of  abode  of  the  Roman  governors  of  Judaea 
in  general.  (See  Antiq.  xviii.  4.  §  1. — xx.  4.  §  4.)  Of 
Pilate  it  certainly  was ;  for  when  the  Jews  had  to  com- 
plain to  him  of  the  profanation  which  had  been  offered  to 
their  Temple  by  the  introduction  of  Caesar's  image  into  it, 
it  was  to  Caesarea  that  they  carried  their  remonstrance. 
(Bell.  Jud.  11.  c.  9.  §  2.) 

It  was  probably  the  business  of  the  Passover  which 
had  brought  Pilate  to  Jerusalem  for  a  few  days,  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Governor  being  never  more  needful  in  the 
capital  than  on  such  an  occasion. 


XIV. 

John  iv.  15. — "The  woman  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  give  me 
this  water,  that  I  thirst  not,  neither  come  hither  to 
draw.?J 
IT  seems,  therefore,  that  there  was  no  water  in  Sychar. 

and  that  the  inhabitants  had  to  come  to  this  well  to  draw 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  351 

Most  likely  it  was  at  some  little  distance  from  the  town3 
for  the  woman  speaks  of  the  labor  of  fetching  the  water 
as  considerable ;  and  Jesus  stopped  short  of  the  town  at 
the  well,  because  he  "was  weaned  with  his  journey," 
whilst  his  disciples  went  on  to  buy  bread. 

Now,  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  with  the  Romans, 
some  of  the  Samaritans  assembled  on  Mount  Gerizim, 
close  to  the  feet  of  which  (be  it  observed)  ivas  the  city 
of  Sychar  placed.1  Upon  this,  Vespasian  determined  to 
put  some  troops  in  motion  against  them.  "  For  although 
all  Samaria  was  provided  with  garrisons,  yet  did  the  num- 
ber and  evil  spirit  of  those  who  had  come  together  at 
Mount  Gerizim  give  ground  for  apprehension  ;  therefore 
he  sent  Cerealis,  the  commander  of  the  fifth  Legion,  with 
six  hundred  horse,  and  three  thousand  foot.  Not  thinking 
it  safe,  however,  to  go  up  the  mountain  and  give  them 
battle,  because  many  of  the  enemy  were  on  the  higher 
ground,  he  encompassed  all  the  circuit  (vnw^iuv)  of  the 
mountain  with  his  army,  and  watched  them  all  that  day. 
But  it  came  to  pass,  that  whilst  the  Samaritans  were 
now  without  water,  a  terrible  heat  came  on,  for  it  was 
summer,  and  the  people  were  unprovided  with  necessaries, 
so  that  some  of  them  died  of  thirst  that  same  day, 
and  many  others,  preferring  slavery  to  such  a  death,  fled 
to  the  Romans." — Bell.  Jud.  in.  7.  §32. 

The  troops  of  Cerealis,  no  doubt,  cut  them  off  from  the 
well  of  Sychar,  which  we  perceive,  from  St.  John,  was  the 
place  to  which  the  neighborhood  were  compelled  to  resort. 
This  is  the  more  likely,  inasmuch  as  the  soldiers  of  the 
Roman  general  do  not  appear  to  have  suffered  from  thirst 
at  all  on  this  occasion. 

Spti. — Joseph.  Antiq.  ii.  8.  €. 


352  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 


XV. 

John  xix.  13.  —  "  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that  saying, 
he  brought  Jesus  forth,  and  sat  down  in  the  judg- 
ment-seat in  a  place  that  is  called  the  Pavement." 


ACCORDING  to  St.  John,  therefore,  (he  being  the  only 
one  of  the  Evangelists  who  mentions  this  incident,)  Pilate 
comes  out  of  his  own  hall  to  his  judgment-seat  on  the 
Pavement.  The  hall  and  the  Pavement  then  were  near 
or  contiguous. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Josephus.  "  The  City  was  strength- 
ened by  the  palace  in  which  he  (Herod)  dwelt,  and  the 
Temple  by  the  fortifications  attached  to  the  bastion  called 
Antonia."  —  (Antiq.  xv.  8.  §  5.)  Hence  we  conclude  that 
the  Temple  was  near  the  Castle  of  Antonia. 

"  On  the  western  side  of  the  court  (of  the  Temple)  were 
four  gates,  one  looking  to  the  palace."  (Antiq.  xv.  11. 
§  5.)  Hence  we  conclude  that  the  Temple  was  near  the 
palace  of  Herod.  Therefore  the  palace  was  near  the 
Castle  of  Antonia. 

But  if  Pilate's  hall  was  a  part  of  the  palace,  as  it  was. 
(that  being  the  residence  of  the  Roman  governor  when  he 
was  at  Jerusalem,)  then  Pilate's  hall  was  near  the  Castle 
of  Antonia. 

Here  let  us  pause  a  moment,  and  direct  our  attention  to 
a  passage  in  the  Jewish  War,  (vi.  1.  §  8,)  where  Josephus 
records  the  prowess  of  a  centurion  in  the  Roman  army. 
Julianns  by  name,  in  an  assault  upon  Jerusalem. 

"  This  man  had  posted  himself  near  Titus,  at  the  Castle 
of  Anton  :a,  when  observing  that  the  Romans  were  giving 
way,  and  defending  themselves  but  indifferently,  he  rushed 
forward  and  drove  back  the  victorious  Jews  to  the  corner 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  353 

of  the  inner  Temple,  single-handed,  for  the  whole  multi- 
tude fled  before  him,  scarcely  believing  such  strength  and 
spirit  to  belong  to  a  mere  mortal.  But  he,  dashing  through 
the  crowd,  smote  them  on  every  side,  as  many  as  he  could 
lay  bauds  upon.  It  was  a  sight  which  struck  Caesar  with 
astonishment,  and  seemed  terrific  to  all.  Nevertheless  his 
fate  overtook  him,  as  how  could  it  be  otherwise,  unless  he 
had  been  more  than  man ;  for  having  many  sharp  nails  in 
his  shoes,  after  the  soldier's  fashion,  he  slipped  as  he  was 
running  upon  the  Pavement,  (x«rd  Aidoarq^Tov^  and  fell 
upon  his  back.  The  clatter  of  his  arms  caused  the  fugi- 
tives to  turn  about :  and  now  a  cry  was  set  up  by  the 
Romans  in  the  Castle  of  Antonio,,  who  were  in  alarm  for 
the  man." 

From  this  passage  it  appears  that  a  pavement  was  near 
the  Castle  of  Antonia ;  but  we  have  already  seen  that  the 
Castle  of  Antonia  was  near  the  palace,  (or  Pilate's  hall :) 
therefore  this  pavement  was  near  Pilate's  hall.  This  then 
is  proved  from  Josephus,  though  very  circuitously,  which 
is  not  the  worse,  that  very  near  Pilate's  residence  a  pave- 
ment (AidoaTQfbw^)  there  was;  that  it  gave  its  name  to 
that  spot  is  not  proved,  yet  nothing  can  be  more  probable 
than  that  it  did  ;  and  consequently  nothing  more  probable 
than  that  St.  John  is  speaking  with  truth  and  accuracy 
when  be  makes  Pilate  bring  Jesus  forth  and  sit  down  in 
his  judgment-seat  in  a  place  called  the  Pavement.1 


XVI. 

John  xix.  15. — "  The  chief  priests  answered,  We  have  na 

king"  but  Ccesar" 
ALTHOUGH  the  Roman  emperors  never  took  the  title  ot 

i  See  Hug's  Introd.  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  i.  p.  18. 
30* 


354  THE    VERACITY   OP    THE  APPEND. 

kings,1  yet  it  appears  from  Josephus  that  they  were  so 
called  by  the  Jews ;  and  in  further  accordance  with  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  that  historian  commonly 
employs  the  term  Casar,  as  sufficient  to  designate  the 
reigning  prince.  Thus,  when  speaking  of  Titus,  he  says, 
"  many  did  not  so  much  as  know  that  the  king  was  in 
any  danger."  And  again,  shortly  after,  "  the  enemy  in- 
deed made  a  great  shout  at  the  boldness  of  Ccesar,  and 
exhorted  one  another  to  rush  upon  him." — (Bell.  Jud.  v. 
2.  §  2.) 

This  is  a  curious  coincidence  in  popular  phraseology, 
and  such  as  bespeaks  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
to  have  been  familiar  with  the  scenes  they  describe,  and 
the  parties  they  introduce. 


XVII. 

Acts  iii.  1,  2. — "  Now  Peter  and  John  went  up  together 
into  the  Temple  at  the  hour  of  prayer,  being  the  ninth 
hour.     And  a  certain  man  lame  from  his  mother's 
womb  was  carried,  whom  they  laid  daily  at  the  gate 
of  the  Temple  which  is  called  Beautiful,  to  ask  alms 
of  them  that  entered  into  the  Temple." 
PETER  recovers  the  cripple.     The  fame  of  his  miracu- 
lous cure  is  instantly  spread  abroad. 

"  And  as  the  lame  man  which  was  healed  held  Peter 
and  John,  all  the  people  ran  together  unto  them  in  the 
porch  that  is  called  Solomon's,  greatly  wondering." — 
(ver.  11.) 

There  is  a  propriety  in  the   localities  of  this   miracle 
which  is  favorable  to  a  belief  in  its  truth. 
Josephus  speaks  of   a   great  outer   gate,  (that  of  the 

1  For  this  remark  I  am  indebted  to  Whiston. 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  355 

Porch,)  "  opening  into  the  Court  of  the  women  on  the 
East,  and  opposite  to  the  gate  of  the  Temple,  in  size  sur- 
passing the  others,  being  fifty  cubits  high  and  forty  wide; 
and  more  finished  in  its  decorations,  by  reason  of  the  thick 
plates  of  silver  and  gold  which  were  upon  it." — (Bell.  Jud. 
v.  §  3.) 

But  in  another  passage  of  the  same  author  we  read  as 
follows  : — "  They  persuaded  the  king  (Agrippa)  to  restore 
the  Eastern  Porch.  This  was  a  porch  of  the  outer 
Temple,  situated  upon  the  edge  of  a  deep  abyss,  resting 
upon  a  wall  four  hundred  cubits  high,  constructed  of  quad- 
rangular stones,  quite  white,  each  stone  twenty  cubits  by 
six,  the  work  of  King  Solomon,  the  original  builder  of  the 
Temple."  (Antiq.  xx.  8.  §  7.)  Thus  it  appears  that  a 
gate,  more  highly  ornamented  than  the  rest,  looked  to  the 
East ;  that  a  porch,  of  which  Solomon  was  the  founder, 
looked  also  to  the  East ;  that  both,  therefore,  were  on  the 
same  side  of  the  Temple,  and  accordingly  that  it  was  very 
natural  for  the  people,  hearing  that  a  cripple  who  usually 
lay  at  the  Beautiful  Gate,  and  who  had  been  cured  as  he 
lay  there,  it  was  very  natural  for  them  to  run  to  Solomon's 
Porch,  to  satisfy  themselves  of  the  truth  of  the  report.1 


XVIII. 

Acts  ix.  36. — "  Now  there  was  at  Joppa  a  certain  disciple, 
named  Tabitha,  which  by  interpretation  is  called 
Dorcas" 

IT  may  be  remarked,  that  Josephus  who  (like  St.  Luke) 
wrote  in  Greek  of  things  which  happened  in  a  country 
where  Syriac  was  the  common  language,  thinks  fit  to  add 

'  See  Hug,  Vol.  i.  p.  19. 


356  THE    VERACITY    Op   THE  APPEND. 

a  similar  explanation  when  he  alludes  to  this  same  proper 
name. 

"  They  sent  one  John,  who  was  the  most  bloody-minded 
of  them  all,  to  do  that  execution.  This  man  was  also 
called  the  son  of  Dorcas  in  the  language  of  our  counr 
try?— (Bell.  Jud.  iv.  3.  §  5.) 


XIX. 

Acts  vi.  1. — "  And  in  those  days,  when,  the  number  of  the 

disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  murmuring 

of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their 

widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration." 

IN  the  first  section  I  found  an  instance  of  consistency 

without  design  in  this  passage,  on  comparing  it  with  the 

context ;  I  now  find  a  second  like  instance,  on  comparing 

it  with  Josephus.     It  seems  that  when  the  disciples  became 

more  numerous,  a  jealousy  began  to  discover  itself  between 

the   Grecians   and   the   Hebrews.      The  circumstance  is 

casually  mentioned  by  St.  Luke,  as  the  accident  which 

gave  occasion  to  the  appointment  of  deacons ;    yet  how 

strictly  characteristic  is  it  of  the  country  and  times  in 

which  it  is  said  to  have  happened. 

"  There  was  a  disturbance  at  Csesarea,"  writes  Josephus, 
"between  the  Jews  and  Syrians  respecting  the  equal  en- 
joyment of  civil  rights ;  the  Jews  laying  claim  to  prece- 
dence because  Herod,  who  was  a  Jew,  had  founded  the 
city :  the  Syrians,  on  the  other  hand,  admitting  this,  but 
maintaining  that  Csesarea  was  originally  called  the  Tower 
of  Straton,  and  did  not  then  contain  a  single  Jew." — 
(Antiq.  xx.  7.  §  7.)  In  the  end  the  two  parties  broke  out 
into  open  war.  This  was  when  Felix  was  governor. 
On  one  occasion,  under  Florus,  we  read  of  20,000  Jews 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  357 

perishing  at  Caesarea  by  the  hands  of  the  Greek  or  Syrian 
part  of  the  population. — (Bel.  Jud.  n.  18.  1.) — And  again, 
we  are  told  that  "  fearful  troubles  prevailed  throughout  all 
Syria,  each  city  dividing  itself  into  two  armies,  and  the 
safety  of  the  one  consisted  in  forestalling  the  violence  of 
the  other.  Thus  the  people  passed  their  days  in  blood  and 
their  nights  in  terror." — (Bel.  Jud.  n.  15.  2.) 

It  is  most  improbable  that  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  if  he 
were  making  up  a  story,  should  have  bethought  himself 
of  a  circumstance  at  once  so  unimportant  as  this  murmur- 
ing of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  and  yet  so  truly 
descriptive  of  the  people  where  his  scene  was  laid?  This 
little  incident  (the  more  trifling  the  better  for  our  purpose) 
carries  with  it  the  strongest  marks  of  truth  ;  and,  like  the 
single  watch-word,  is  a  voucher  for  the  general  honesty  of 
the  party  that  utters  it.  Indeed,  the  establishment  of  one 
fact  may  be  thought  in  itself  to  entail  the  credibility  of 
many  more.  If  it  be  certain  that  there  was  a  murmuring 
of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews  because  their  widows 
were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration,  then  it  is  probable 
that  there  was  a  common  fund  out  of  which  widows  were 
maintained ;  that  many  sold  their  possessions  to  contribute 
to  this  fund ;  that  it  must  have  been  a  strong  motive 
which  could  urge  to  such  a  disposal  of  their  property  :  that 
no  motive  could  be  so  likely  as  their  conviction  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  ;  and  that  such  a  conviction  could  spring 
out  of  nothing  so  surely  as  the  evidence  of  miracles.  I  do 
not  say  that  all  these  matters  necessarily  follow  from  the 
certainty  of  the  first  simple  fact,  but  I  say  that  admitting 
it,  they  all  follow  in  a  train  of  very  natural  consequence. 


358  THE    VERACITY   OF    THE  APPEND. 

XX. 

Acts  xxv.  13. — "  And  after  certain  days  King  Agrippa 
and  Bernice  came  unto  Ccesarea  to  salute  Festus" 

THIS  Agrippa  (Agrippa  Minor)  had  succeeded,  by  per- 
mission of  Claudius,  to  the  territories  of  his  uncle  Herod ; 
at  least,  Trachonitas,  Batanaea,  and  Abilene,  were  con- 
firmed to  him.  From  this  passage  in  the  Acts  it  appears, 
as  might  be  expected,  that  he  was  anxious  to  be  well  with 
the  Roman  Government,  and  accordingly  that  he  lost  no 
time  in  paying  his  respects  to  Festus,  the  new  representa- 
tive of  that  Government  in  Judaea.  It  is  a  singular  and 
minute  coincidence  well  worth  our  notice,  that  Josephus 
records  instances  of  this  same  Agrippa's  obsequiousness  to 
Roman  authorities,  of  precisely  the  same  kind.  "  About 
this  time,"  says  he,  "  King  Agrippa  went  to  Alexandria, 
to  salute  Alexander,  who  had  been  sent  by  Nero  to  gov- 
ern Egypt."— (Ke\.  Jud.  n.  15.  §  1.) 

And  again,  (what  is  yet  more  to  our  purpose,)  we  read, 
on  another  occasion,  that  Bernice  accompanied  Agrippa 
in  one  of  these  visits  of  ceremony  ;  for  having  appointed 
Varus  to  take  care  of  their  kingdom  in  their  absence,  "  they 
went  to  Berytus  with  the  intention  of  meeting  Gessius 
(Florus,)  the  Roman  governor  of  Judcea" — (Jos.  Life, 
§  11.) 

This  is  a  case  singularly  parallel  to  that  in  the  Acts  : 
for  Gessius  Florus  held  the  very  same  office,  in  the  same 
country,  as  Felix. 

XXI. 

Acts  xxv.  23. — "  And  on  the  morrow,  when  Agrippa  was 
come,  and  Bernice,  with  great  pomp,  and  was  entered 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND    ACTS.  359 

into  the  place  of  hearing,  with  the  chief  captains  and 
principal  men  of  the  city,  at  Festus'  commandment 
Paul  was  brought  forth.'* 

IT  might  seem  extraordinary  that  Bernice  should  be 
present  on  such  an  occasion — that  a  woman  should  take 
any  share  in  an  affair,  one  would  have  supposed,  foreign 
to  her,  and  exclusively  belonging  to  the  other  sex.  But 
here  again  we  have  another  proof  of  the  veracity  and  ac- 
curacy of  the  sacred  writings.  For  when  Agrippa  (the 
same  Agrippa)  endeavored  to  combat  the  spirit  of  rebel- 
lion which  was  beginning  to  show  itself  amongst  the  Jews, 
and  addressed  them  in  that  famous  speech  given  in  Jose- 
phus,  which  throws  so  much  light  on  the  power  and  pro- 
vincial polity  of  the  Romans,  he  first  of  all  "placed  his 
sister  Bernice  (the  same  Bernice)  in  a  conspicuous  situa- 
tion, upon  the  house  of  the  Asamonaeans,  which  was  above 
the  gallery,  at  the  passage  to  the  upper  city,  where  the 
bridge  joined  the  Temple  to  the  gallery ;"  and  then  he 
spoke  to  the  people.  And  when  his  oration  was  ended,  we 
read  that  "  both  he  and  his  sister  shed  tears,  and  so  re- 
pressed much  violence  in  the  multitude." — (Bel.  Jud.  n. 
16.  §  3.) 

There  is  another  passage,  occurring  in  the  life  of  Jose- 
phus,  which  is  no  less  valuable  ;  for  it  serves  to,  show  yet 
further  the  political  importance  of  Bernice,  and  how  much 
she  was  in  the  habit  of  acting  with  Agrippa  on  all  public 
occasions.  One  Philip,  who  was  governor  of  Gamala  and 
the  country  about  it,  under  Agrippa,  had  occasion  to  com- 
municate with  the  latter,  probably  on  the  subject  of  his 
escape  from  Jerusalem,  where  he  had  been  recently  in  dan- 
ger, and  of  his  return  to  his  own  station.  The  transaction 
is  thus  described : — 

"  He  wrote  to  Agrippa  and  Bernice,  and  gave  the  let- 
ters to  one  of  his  freedmen  to  carry  to  Varus,  who  at  that 


360  THE    VERACITY    OF    THE  APPEND. 

time  was  procurator  of  the  kingdom,  which  the  sovereigns 
(i.  e.  the  king  and  his  sister-wife)  had  intrusted  him  withal, 
while  they  were  gone  to  Berytus  to  meet  Gessius.  When 
Varus  had  received  these  letters  of  Philip,  and  had  learned 
that  he  was  in  safety,  he  was  very  uneasy  at  it,  supposing 
that  he  should  appear  useless  to  the  sovereigns  (fi 
now  Philip  was  come."  (Josephus's  Life,  §  11.) 


XXII. 

Acts  xxviii.  1 1,  12,  13. — "  And  after  three  months  we  de- 
parted in  a  ship  of  Alexandria,  which  had  wintered 
in  the  isle,  whose  sign  was  Castor  and  Pollux.     And 
landing  at  Syracuse,   we   tarried   there   three   days. 
And  from  thence  we  fetched  a  compass,  and  came  to 
Rhegium  :    and  after  one  day  the  south  wind  blew, 
and  we  came  the  next  day  to  Puteoli" 
PUTEOLI  then,  it  should  seem,  was  the  destination  of 
this  vessel  from  Alexandria.     Now,  we  may  collect,  from 
the  independent  testimony  ol  the  Jewish  historian,  that 
this  was  the  port  of  Italy  to  which  ships  from  Egypt 
and  the  Levante  in  those  times  commonly  sailed.    Thus 
when  Herod  Agrippa  went  from  Judaea  to  Rome,  for  the 
purpose  of  paying  his  court  to  Tiberias,  and  bettering  his 
fortune,  he  directed  his  course  first  to  Alexandria,  for  the 
sake  of  visiting  a  friend,   and  then  crossing  the  Medi- 
terranean, he  landed  at  Puteoli.      (Antiq.  xviii.  7.  §  4.) 
Again,  when  Herod    the  Tetrarch,  at  the  instigation  of 
Herodias,   undertook  a  voyage   to  Rome,  to  solicit  from 
Caligula  a  higher  title,  which  might  put  him  upon  a  level 
with  his  brother-in-law,  Herod  Agrippa,  the  latter  pursued 
him  to  Italy,  and  both  of  them  (says  Josephu.s,)  landed 


APPEND.  GOSPELS    AND   ACTS.  361 

at  Dichcearchia  (Puteoli,)  and  found  Caius  at  Baiee. 
(Antiq.  xviii.  8.  §  2.) 

Take  a  third  instance.  Josephus  had  himself  occasion, 
when  a  young  man,  to  go  to  Rome.  On  his  passage  the 
vessel  in  which  he  sailed  foundered,  but  a  ship  from  Gyrene 
picked  him  up,  together  with  eighty  of  his  companions ; 
"and,  having  safely  arrived  (says  he)  at  Dichcearchia, 
which  the  Italians  call  Puteoli,  I  became  acquainted  with 
Aliturus,"  &c,  (Josephus's  Life,  §  3.) 

In  this  last  passage  there  is  a  singular  resemblance  to 
the  circumstances  of  St.  Paul's  voyage.  Josephus,  though 
not  going  to  Rome  as  a  prisoner  who  had  himself  appealed 
from  Felix  to  Caesar,  was  going  to  Rome  on  account  of  two 
friends,  whom  Felix  thought  proper  to  send  to  Caesar's 
judgment-seat — he  suffered  shipwreck — he  was  forwarded 
by  another  vessel  coming  from  Africa — and  finally  he 
landed  at  Puteoli. 


THE    EN 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAL\£p*lNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


FEB    11  194* 


APR  2 


SAprtBJP 


9 1956  nr 


^NTER-LIBRA 
LOAN 

MAR  2  3  1972 


INTERLIBRA 


JAN? 
UNIV.  OF  CA 

JUL251992 


Y  LOAN 


y/4 


IF.,  BERK. 
I 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


IK.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


